Am I punishing these players too much/little?

[woolybearundertaker]

Remember, you're playing a game. The purpose of a game is to have fun. Being excluded from a conversation is not fun. Furthermore, being punished in-game is also not fun, and in many cases completely ineffective.


I have to disagree with you a bit here. The players in my group tend to create characters with a lot of dark secrets in their backgrounds. Following up on those threads in one-on-one conversations with the DM IS fun. Waiting for 15-30 minutes while the DM runs a privtate encounter for one of the other players isnt as much fun as gaming, but c'mon, you're chilling with the other players and close to the donuts and coffee, its not like you re suffereing really. (as long as the DM keeps the private encounters to about 30 minutes or less)

Slapping them with an 1000XP fine is kinda mickey mouse, but so is eavesdropping on private conversations.

I think it s probably a good way to get their attention. (Making the two perps be EXACTLY 1000 XP short of their next level in a couple of sessions would also remind them of the incident...)

Oh, and tell them "next time you re out!"

b/c c'mon, you re not theit babysitter/nanny/obedience school trainer

 

[DragonLancer]

The XP fine is a good way of teaching them. In the same situation I would do the same.

It is a game, but there are rules to any game, and a player who oversteps the line needs be punished. It happens in professional sports, so why not in a roleplaying game.

Admittidly in my own games I now no longer accept private notes or allow private conversations outside/away from the gaming table. We are meant to be roleplayers so we should not be metagaming with information we don't know IC.

 

[Agback]

G'day

One of the worst things about the terms 'gamemaster' and 'dungeonmaster' is that they encourage us to think of ourselves as The Man, instead of just one of several people playing a game together. Get this: you aren't their parents, you aren't their schoolteacher, you aren't their boss, and you sure as Hell aren't a judge. These are your friends, This is a game. It is supposed to be enjoyable. There should be no punishment involved at any stage.

I am also of the opinion that the practice of taking some players aside for secret chats is fundamentally misconceived. The other players cannot be entertained by what they don't know about. If your players cannot or dislike to firewall OOG knowledge, it is far better to structure parties and adventures so as not to need secret conversations.

IMHO, YMMV. YDWYDWP. BIHBDTFMTTY.

Regards,


Agback

 

[clark411]

I couldn't picture my group enjoying the game with as much consistancy if there wasn't a "voice of authority" present. I agree that being DungeonMaster doesn't give you the spanking paddle. It doesn't afford you any more respect than you'd expect the other players present and not present to recieve.

That doesn't necessarily mean however, that respect should be absent, that there should be no ground rules or fairly obvious ones, and no results for breaking them. If this guy's listening in was fun for him, but ruined the fun of two other people- who's exactly in the wrong? I'd say that just with the numbers it's the one guy. I'd probably leave "Fun" out of the whole mess as it's, at best, often a shallow and selfish defense by those who tend to not play well with others. It's fine to color outside the lines, but not when your fingerpaint ends up in Teddy's eye.

As for the "misconcieved" idea of private conversations in gaming- different strokes is all. My players love sneaky talk, they love having small conversations- and they usually don't want to know what their characters don't know. Their enjoyment maybe comes from piecing the plots together, or maybe they just don't want to deal with the metagaming potential (weak will or self aware- whatever makes em happy). If I direct my attention to one player as DM, the other three will jump on my couches and gab in character about what they want to do. I've heard some awesome things cooking in their minds as to their own motivations with it. Heck, sometimes they take turns playing NPCs that they come up with and just talk. The only aspect of "it's more fun to see it all" that i can concur with is that as a DM, I wish I could give every player a tape recorder so I could listen to it all afterwards.

Pushing this away from the "my anecdote says your ideas are kooky and anything but universal tack," and back on track to the original poster... It's clear that this DM doesn't want to resort to a huggy-talk-connect-with-our-feelings-and-wants-and-needs powwow. That leaves either a warning or a bit of negative reinforcement. No one else but the DM can really offer either, it usually is an unwanted thing you gotta do... That or just take it like a... well, I won't finish the saying for dear grandmothers.

Personally, I wouldn't take it. If someone couldn't show me the smallest modicum of respect, the same respect I give them as players interested in my campaign- they're out of there, or no XP for the session. I think that "no XP" is a far nicer option to being booted completely.

 

[wrabbit37]

I've run into similar problems before. While I agree it is disrespectful, you need to take a step back from how much it hurt you and realize why they did it. As Jeph and woolybearundertaker were talking about, they did it because they were at the game to have fun. Sitting around while the GM and another player go off and have a few private conversations is pretty boring.

The GM shouldn't have to worry that private conversations are being listened to, but neither should the players feel like in order to do something for a half hour out of the six hour game they came to play, they have to listen in on conversations.

In my campaign, I've decided to try to limit all private encounters. Even when the group splits up, we generally run them in front of all the players. That way they get to see what's going on and have fun watching encounters unfold.

If I have something private I need to tell a player and it's short, I write it down on a slip of paper and pass it along. Easy, short, doesn't stop the flow of the game.

If I find I do need to have a private conversation with a player, I engineer a situation where he is seperate from the rest of the group, then I engineer it so the rest of the group has something to talk about. I watch over the conversation for a minute or so to make sure they're on topic and the like, then I say something like "While you guys are discussing this, I have to have a quick word with Player 2. We'll be back in a minute." Of course, my players are mature enough to keep on topic and in game without me around to supervise for a little while. I never let those encounters run past 5 or 10 minutes, though. It's unfair to the others who came around to play too and now must wait for me to return to do anything.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think taking players aside for a private conversation is totally ok as long as it is for short periods of time (typically 3 minutes or less in my game, but even a 10 minute conversation would be ok) and it happens infrequently (probably 6 times in 60 hours of gaming in our current campaign).

However, there are just some things that the other players should just not know at all or it will affect their playing. I don't care if they are a Demigod of Roleplaying and can segregate in game and out of game knowledge, it will affect them.

For example, PC1 turns into a lyncanthrope and none of the other PCs know about it. This is knowledge that the other players just shouldn't have until the appropriate point in time.


As for punishing players, I do not bother with metagaming ways to do that. If a player does something inappropriate in game, I reward him appropriately in game. For example, a good PC murders someone, the authorities will be all over him if they know about it. If they do not know, then he might get away with it, at least for a while (but typically not in a world of magic where secrets can more easily be unearthed, someone might eventually come along and try to blackmail or arrest the PC).

If a player does something inappropriate out of game, the other players usually handle it for me (which hasn't happened in my current campaign, but I have had problems with a few people in the past). If the other players did not handle it (like it appears happened in the original posters game), I would just tell that person that it is inappropriate behavior and I would move on. I wouldn't "punish the player". That's not my job as DM. I'm not his Mom.

 

[barsoomcore]

Good heavens. Is that you and I agreeing, KarinsDad?

Yes it is.

Especially the part about the other players handling it -- a good reminder that it's THEIR game being affected as much as yours, as the DM.

 

[Arthur Tealeaf]

There are two ways to deal with this, as mentioned: In game and Out of game.

Out of game, a simple talk would suffice -- here is what metagaming is, here is why I don't want to see it in my game, and if I do see it in the game, it tells me that you're cheating, and therefore, you're going to be kicked out. As a DM, you should be able to have that private conversation right there in the room with the other players, and the other players should have their heads out of their back pockets enough to avoid using any of their in-character knowledge. In the same vein, your players should be able to make a Spot, Sense Motive, or Search check, roll a 1, and say, "Okay, no problem there, full speed ahead!" instead of saying, "Well, I don't see anything, but maybe I should check again, just to be sure."

In game, my solution would be simple. Observe:

DM: Hey, P1, come out into the kitchen with me for a private conversation. (goes into kitchen, knowing that group is eavesdropping) The elf says, "When you get to the temple, you'll see a giant red ruby. The person who touches it will gain permanent mightiness and become so physically powerful that rocks will bounce off his chest like sand."

P2: Bwaha, I'm eavesdropping! I'm sneaky! Ya-hoil!

DM: Hey, P1, good conversation. (Comes back into room.) Okay, you all head out and show up at the temple. It appears to have been the site of a major battle.

P2: Is there anything interesting, um, like a giant ruby?

DM: Why, yes.

P1: I head for --

P2: I run over and grab the ruby!

DM: Okay, as you touch it, a beam of red light flares out. The rest of you are momentarily blinded, and when you can all see again, P2's PC, and all of his items, have been turned into stone.

P2: Hey! That's not what you told P1 would happen!

P1: Dude, no kidding. Good thing I didn't touch that thing.

P2: Suck!

DM: A moment later, an anvil falls from the ceiling and crushes the statue of P2's character. You'll need a resurrection spell to bring him back now.

P2: Oh, man! This is so--

DM: What is that? A Gust of Wind trap? D'oh, it looks like most of P2's PC's body has blown away. I guess it's gonna be a TRUE resurrection or Wish now. Man, too bad you ran over and grabbed that ruby like that. Hey, P3, your bard sees something written over where the ruby was resting. Your Decipher Script check reveals that it says, "Cursed Ruby: Do Not Touch".

P1: Ah, if only he'd stopped and waited for us to search for traps.

P2: But you told him what it would be!!!

And at that point, if P2 hasn't figured out that you are going to use each and every one of his little cheating experiences to utterly shaft him, you should give up and start pelting him with four-sided dice until he leaves.

That's just great! I'm reeally considering this, just to see if they have learned. See, I took away the XP penalty. I never actually thought about it being an in game penalty for an out-of-game issue, but then you guys came along! Instead, I tried to give them a warning... It didn't work very well though... The player who tried to deny having eavesdropped continued to do so, arguing that when a character and an NPC, both with military backgrounds, meet and have (confidential) unfinished business from times past, the only thing that's feasible to believe is, that they are going to assassinate someone. He got mad at me when I didn't agree... But, I still told him, whether he did or not, if I catch him doing it at all, he's out!

 

[clark411]

If he attempts to justify it as what his character would do, then he should be rolling move silently and hide checks to shadow the other PC. I can absolutely see a DM having a "private" conversation with a PC and one or more others actually hearing it all, but in the interest of fairness (in game not-fairness still needs mechanical fairness) rolls or things should enter play. Secretive PCs should not be absolutely certain their secrets are safe, and the Paranoid PCs should not be certain they can uncover the truth (especially by cheatin and going behind the DM's back).

Heck, i'd find it hilarious to have a PC and NPC have a staged converation and give out false information while talking through hand gestures because they know someone's listening at the door... I'd love it even more if the PC listening knew the meanings of the hand gestures with a Sense Motive check!

That said, the justification for his being jerky is weak (of course assassination is the only thing two ex-military guys could possibly have in common) and i'm glad you bottom-lined it for him with a stance of zero tolerance.

 

[Arthur Tealeaf]

If he attempts to justify it as what his character would do, then he should be rolling move silently and hide checks to shadow the other PC.

This all happened at night, when the PC in question was on his guard shift, when the NPC sneaked up on him to talk. I actually rolled listen checks for the other characters but none of them would have heard it even if they were awake, so they were all sleeping during the conversation