How to punish a metagamer?

Sorry, but I have some trouble understanding the OP.

So we have a bit of an issue. We have been able to finally find players that we like except for one. He is a major metagamer. For example, we had some party discord about loot essentially the fighter (metagamer) wanted to hold on to a magical item that was meant for a caster. The oracle (me) wanted the item. He refused to hand it over and the wizard cast a charm spell on him. Well, as soon as the fighter heard that the wizard had charmed him he waited until we had rested for the night and said that he was going to coup de grace the wizard during his watch.
So, he was metagaming because he didn't give away an item away (I assume) his character found first, because the DM intended it to be for someone else? Who was metagaming there?
And then the (I assume) good aligned wizard mind controlled him to give it to someone else? Just because the item would be cooler for his buddy?
Maybe trying to kill him is a hard reaction, but I saw no metagaming on the fighter's part...

This caused the rest of the group to get angry saying that he had no reason to hate or kill the wizard that a level 2 fighter would have no idea what the wizard did when he did his magic. In order for the group to continue on the DM allowed the wizard to go back and change his action after the spell.
Why not? Assume another character was charmed and tricked to give away all his items to a NPC enchanter. Would he think the next day anything was normal? The spell stats nowhere that the person hit cannot think clearly after the duration expires.
BTW, had the fighter ever seen the wizard using the spell on someone else?

We are thinking about clamming up and not saying anything and just passing notes the entire time.
Not very mature...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Originally Posted by Alishea
He even went so far as to run off by himself into a portal when the oracle and the wizard had NO spells left. He just got bored and decided to run off.
Absolutely no reason for this... unless spellcasters insist on going nova each fight, meaning resting 8hrs+ after each encounter...
 
Last edited:

As I said, Charm spells work differently, unless the fighter knows a charm spell was cast (as in someone told him it happened) there is no way for him to know it happened. Whether he makes his saving throw or not will not let him know that it happened at all. While he is charmed, he won't know he's charmed. And when its over he won't know it happened.

Got a rules cite for that?
Because I haven't seen anything in the rules stating it.

Also here's your position from the post on Yesterday 06:13 PM

"Charm spells are a bit different. If you fail your save you won't know you're enchanted until the spell expires."

which reads as stating that you will know you were enchanted once the spell has expired

If the bad guy force him to kill all his companions, when the charm is over he might be aware that something happened. However, since the charm is being caused by a fellow party member, unless one of the other PC's let's him know it happened. He won't know the difference - as if nothing happened at all. This only applies to spells like Charm, not spells with obvious physical effects like burnt bodies from a Fireball. Charm has no obvious physical effect that the Fighter can recognize before nor after the fact.

Party member or not doesn't come into it.
Magic is being used to change how somebody feels and it's likely to be extremely apparent to the person who was affected that something changed how they felt immediately after the wizard cast a spell and a few hours later they can't see any reason why their attitude changed.

a) the knowledge of the existance of spells that affect the mind and perception will be pretty much universal in darmned near any campaign
b) "wizard cast spell which did nothing I could see" -> "me mind changed"
"wizard enchanted kobold earlier", "maybe wizard enchanted me"

if you are saying that you can't possible connect those facts unless you have spellcraft I will disagree unless you have a very clear rules cite.
 

In reading the OP, and what the OP later posted the player in question doesn't seem to care about his character so much, as just playing his alignment as a chaotic neutral. In my mind a CN character might just let the wizard have the magic item as getting it himself. He chose the item to remain with himself at that moment, but could have easily gone the other way, if his mood was different. If a charm spell coaxed him to let the wizard have the item, he might not know that it was not his decision to do so.

If on the other hand it was completely out of character for him to give up the item, then sure, there's a chance that he might suspect magic was used on him to force the decision. If so, he'd recognize that something like a charm spell was used on him.

I just don't think it was obvious, nor out of character for a CN - which could do anything (or at least that's what this player thinks a CN character might do). If the character thought he gain some advantage by letting the wizard take the item instead, he might just do that, and that too would be an appropriately CN tack to take.

This thinking wouldn't apply to every player/PC, but it seems it might be very appropriate for the one in question.

With the above understanding (as I see it), the fighter would have little idea unless somebody told him he was charmed, that anything untoward happened to him.

Then all of my previous posts are accurate.

Personally, I think using a charm spell on one of your own members is a dirty thing to do. As a player, I wouldn't play with a group that would take this tact. But then as a player, I wouldn't deliberately screw over another party member out of a magic item more appropriate for someone else in the party.

Overall, the party and this particular player are both dysfunctional.

But my reasoning still stands.

Edit: (citing rules from the Pathfinder Core)

Charm Person
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

(me now) Since the Charmed Person in question is already an ally, it would be even less a problem to convince them to do a party friendly act. If the action desired, is perceived to be in opposition to the charmed person's goals, they would receive an opposed check (don't know if that was done in this particular instance). If they fail their opposed check, however, nothing in the spell description suggests that the player or other Charmed Person would know he was charmed after-the-fact.
 
Last edited:

I say you should let him have the Wizard-type magic item and the DM should have it slowly effect him in a cursed manner.

I've always said, there is a way to deal with anything the players think is immune to DM-intervention.
 

This is no-doubt going to get ignored by most future posters but...

The question was "how to punish a metagamer?" not "who's actions were justified?", not "do fighters know about charms?", not "Does this make the wizard evil?", etc.

The GM seems to have already made her choice on all those issues, and it seems most of her group agree with her. The topic seems to have gotten derailed into more questioning of everyone's judgement than actually addressing her question though.
 
Last edited:

I say you should let him have the Wizard-type magic item and the DM should have it slowly effect him in a cursed manner.

I've always said, there is a way to deal with anything the players think is immune to DM-intervention.

I think the only solution is to talk to the player 'out of game' and try to convince him that his roleplaying tactics serves only to bring discontinuity and 'unfun' to the entire group, and that doing so is selfish and a 'dickhead maneuver'. Either the player changes his tactics or he leaves the table.

I don't think charming him or cursing him will bring anything positive to the game. Either he stops his behavior or he leaves the table permanently - that in my mind is the only reasonable solution.
 

This is no-doubt going to get ignored by most future posters but...

The question was "how to punish a metagamer?" not "who's actions were justified?", not "do fighters know about charms?", not "Does this make the wizard evil?", etc.

The GM seems to have already made her choice on all those issues, and it seems most of her group agree with her. The topic seems to have gotten derailed into more questioning of everyone's judgement than actually addressing her question though.

How many forum threads, except for the most contraversial first posts, aren't derailed by page four anyway... just saying - I don't think I've ever read any thread on any forum that goes for page after page that isn't always derailed.
 

How many forum threads, except for the most contraversial first posts, aren't derailed by page four anyway... just saying - I don't think I've ever read any thread on any forum that goes for page after page that isn't always derailed.

Just because it always happens doesn't mean it's okay to go ahead and do it...
 

True, but I wasn't derailing so much as responding to a disagreement with a point I made before it was fully derailed. Its a forum, though, we discuss issues related to the OP in addition to specifically the OP. Whether it seems right or not, I'm not judging, just participating in forum discussion - even at the expense of a derailed thread.

While it doesn't specifically address the OP's exact concerns, it is related, so not completely out of line (not a complete derail, IMO.)
 

Remove ads

Top