How to punish a metagamer?

[Celtavian]

If I were playing with this guy, I'd let him level up with us. Then when I got the opportunity, I'd kill him or let him die. And not bother to bring him back. If he wants to play PK games, I'd play the game with him.

 

[Felon]

If I were playing with this guy, I'd let him level up with us. Then when I got the opportunity, I'd kill him or let him die. And not bother to bring him back. If he wants to play PK games, I'd play the game with him.

You have managed to miss the point others have so deftly made, which is that the player in question is not gleefully indulging in "PK", but rather that he's trying to indicate in no uncertain terms that attempts by another player to usurp his will is not going to pass without consequence.

Furthermore, your proposed solution of one-upmanship only serves to reinforce my general feeling that role-playing gamers in general have a minimal-at-best grasp of the basic concepts of conflict resolution. And indeed, the very players who stress role-playing over hack-and-slash seem to have the hardest time handling the distinct personalities that show up at a gaming table.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

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.

It wasn't a failed spell though. The spell worked, and made him give up the item. I would agree that he would have realized it if the spell had failed, but I'm not so sure about that considering the spell actually worked. That's why I asked whether he saw it being cast or not.

 

[Walking Dad]

I'm glad the situation was solved without bloodshed

Best wishes for the future mother.

I will leave the thread now as it became so long, that new posters don't bother to read it entirely and already solved discussions are started anew.

 

[Gazra]

I know this has been resolved, but I would have brought the game to a screeching halt the second the coup de grace happened. From an alignment perspective, murder is a not a CN act. As a DM I would have informed the player that his alignment is now CE until further notice, which would cause all sorts of problems for the party.

However, as others have pointed out, an in-game solution is not likely to be effective in these situations. Really, this behavior needs to be called out on the spot. Let the player know: this is my game and like this will not be tolerated. I would have also pointed out to the Wizard that the Charm spell did overstep some boundaries, but reminded the Fighter that he has no business with this item other than it is valuable. Rather than giving him the boot, give him the option: hand over the item to the Wizard or leave the game table. Let him know that if does play nice, a shiny item will have his name on it in the very future.

 

[Mad Hamish]

I know this has been resolved, but I would have brought the game to a screeching halt the second the coup de grace happened. From an alignment perspective, murder is a not a CN act. As a DM I would have informed the player that his alignment is now CE until further notice, which would cause all sorts of problems for the party.

Did you have Paladins fall from grace in 1st ed D&D if they attacked a sleeping dragon?
Do you have characters go evil if they coup de grace a fallen or paralyzed foe?

However, as others have pointed out, an in-game solution is not likely to be effective in these situations. Really, this behavior needs to be called out on the spot. Let the player know: this is my game and like this will not be tolerated. I would have also pointed out to the Wizard that the Charm spell did overstep some boundaries, but reminded the Fighter that he has no business with this item other than it is valuable. Rather than giving him the boot, give him the option: hand over the item to the Wizard or leave the game table. Let him know that if does play nice, a shiny item will have his name on it in the very future.

If you actually read back you'll find it was, iirc, a Pipe of the Sewers which the character could use.

 

[Gazra]

Seeing as how I never played 1st edition, no. And I wouldn't.

I would also make a distinction between murder and slaying a dragon. Your situation is far too vague to have any sort of gravity regarding alignment. What if the dragon they slew had been terrorizing a town for the last few years?

It's not the coup de grace itself that would cause my reaction. Rather, it would be a player intentionally causing harm to the infrastructure of the game. Both parties are guilty in this situation, but the fighter took it to an unprecedented level where, if the DM allowed it, the action caused irreparable harm.

Regardless of whether or not he could use it, this player was clearly way outside of any acceptable rules of conduct.

 

[Felon]

I know this has been resolved, but I would have brought the game to a screeching halt the second the coup de grace happened. From an alignment perspective, murder is a not a CN act. As a DM I would have informed the player that his alignment is now CE until further notice, which would cause all sorts of problems for the party.

Well, causing all sorts of problems for the party via heavy-handed ruling does indeed seem to be the chief purview of many DM's in this thread.

Murder may be evil, but it's not murder from the character's perspective. A CN character is primarily with doing as he pleases. He lacks a CE's desire to dominate others or inflict harm for pleasure, but his personal freedom takes priority over law and morality. From that perspective, being mind-controlled would represent a very serious violation against his person, and might well merit deadly retaliation. And clearly, the player (not just the character) saw his actions as retaliation, not murder. Retaliation for an assault that promises to be followed up by further assaults. Indeed, killing the offending wizard is exactly what I might expect a CN to do.

However, as others have pointed out, an in-game solution is not likely to be effective in these situations. Really, this behavior needs to be called out on the spot. Let the player know: this is my game and like this will not be tolerated. I would have also pointed out to the Wizard that the Charm spell did overstep some boundaries, but reminded the Fighter that he has no business with this item other than it is valuable. Rather than giving him the boot, give him the option: hand over the item to the Wizard or leave the game table. Let him know that if does play nice, a shiny item will have his name on it in the very future.

Another dominant notion in this thread is apparent disposability of one's fellow gamers. From what I've seen over the last few pages, there must be D&D players crawling out of the woodwork to consider them so easily discarded, because at the first sign of trouble it's either "I get up and leave" or "I boot him". This truly depresses me.

Conflict resolution is a discipline unto itself. I would recommend to anybody playing D&D that they should enrich themselves by doing a little reading on the five basic methods: comfront, compromise, smooth, force, and avoid. Seems most threads of this sort seem to arise because of avoiding, and most replies advocate forcing. Neither is geared towards a win-win outcome.

The OP doesn't indicate by what means the fighter acquired the magic item that the wizard wanted. If the loot distribution method placed the item in the fighter's hands fair and square, then the wizard would be obliged to offer compensation. If there is no loot distribution method, then they need to establish one.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Another dominant notion in this thread is apparent disposability of one's fellow gamers. From what I've seen over the last few pages, there must be D&D players crawling out of the woodwork to consider them so easily discarded, because at the first sign of trouble it's either "I get up and leave" or "I boot him". This truly depresses me.

That's pretty much the general way of thinking all over this place. Post a thread discussing a minor problem you have with a player and ask for solutions other than booting them. It'll be suggested several times anyways.

I wonder where the boot-happy attitude arises from. It took me months to get enough players for my own group. To kick people out over every argument would lead to no players.

 

[Gazra]

I never suggested booting him. I suggested giving him the option: work out a compromise or choose not to play. There is a difference.

I think the fighter should have responded in some way that let the Wizard know he overstepped his boundaries and it won't be tolerated. However, responding to what was a pretty innocuous move with murder is more than a little extreme. Hide his spellbook. Hit him with the flat side of your sword for sub dual damage until he is unconscious and warn him there won't be another warning. These are things that work in character and are more than appropriate.

I agree with your interpretation of CN, but how does a character of CN alignment function in a group? They give up a little bit of their independence in exchange for a greater sense of security. This is why I don't see murder as an appropriate response. This is not some random person stealing from the fighter; this is a character that he has agreed to work with so that he may achieve greater success for himself.

For all of CN's unpredictability, there is no reason that he would resort to something so extreme when he's already operating outside of the "individualist, first and last" mentality of CN.