Follow Up Thoughts
Thank you all for the replies.
The basic situation is this. I have a player who, like many out there, takes the time to know the rules. What I have called Meta-Gaming may be more accurately described as simple rules-lawyering, which I can handle. The crux is that I have told him that his actions are meta-gaming and that he needs to cut it out. His response is that he is not and he finds it offensive that I make that accusation. So first, I needed to determine if I was using the term "Meta-Gaming" with any accuracy.
General Examples:
1. The Rules Laywer (L) complains in-game that the encounter used is far too high for the party (A treant vs Party Level 3-4, 6 characters) and that "If I were the DM, I would never send such an encounter against the party. (insert pout here)"
2. L using out-of-character discussions to develop group tactical strategy or to get information from player's characters are not in the same room as his character.
3. I am not running a Ravenloft campaign. I am running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms with a Gothic Horror/HP Lovecraftian theme. Yet, L insists that I need to reconsider the calls I am making in the game because "In Ravenloft, the rules work this way..." "Oh, I see the DM has The Ravenloft Monster Manual, get ready guys!..." He is understandably confused even though I have told him that I am not running a ravenloft campaign.
Specific Example:
A. One of my players (P1) missed a campaign session that ended right in the middle of combat at a cliffhanger. Another player (P2) had unexplainedly shot an NPC in the back that was suspected of trying to assasinate a third player (P3). The session ended with the group turning tail and running in one direction, and the NPC running in the other. The following gaming session, P1 returned to the table. I explained to P1 everything that her character would have seen happen prior to the session.
B. The next session opens, and three of my players, P1, P4, and L move down into my basement to explain to P1 what had happened in the previous game. I felt that I had already told P1 what had happened, but apparantly, she wanted to hear it from the players. Fine, I thought. After about ten minutes, I told them they needed to rejoin the group upstairs. Any further explanation could be conducted in front of eveyone. I was concerned that instead of telling her the facts of the encounter, they would explain to her P2's rationale for his actions and thus remove the surprise and suspense created by P2's unannounced crossbow bolt to the NPC's kidneys.
C. The NPC is a Doppleganger. I have rolled each character's sense motive rolls secretly and the NPC is effectively disguising itself. The only clue the characters have to go on is that the NPC, disguised as an Elven Ranger/Druid has no scent. (My DM rule for dopplegangers, one of my characters has the scent ability from the Monster Manual) and that they are having difficulty tracking her (Boots of Shaundakul/Pass without trace - Forgotten Realms).
D. There have been posters put up around the PC's town placing a bounty on the head of P4, the party's Cat-Person. The Bounty Poster explains that the Cat-Man is a terrible beast and solicits bounty hunters to capture or kill P4. P4 has had to move and live in secrecy because of his appearance and this bounty. The party is currently traveling to the hamlet that this bounty is from so they can try to deal with the mayor, who placed the bounty on P4. When the NPC meets the party, the NPC is hunting what appeared to be a "Were-Boar". The NPC tracks and kills the "were-boar" in front of the party. The Were-Boar was a transformed creature, similar to P4. The one clue the party never picked up on is that the NPC used normal weapons to kill the "were-boar".(Think "Island of Dr. Moreau" - they don't know this)
E. So, in this case, I have a character L, who has a tendency to metagame. I am running an NPC that the party has met for the first time (two minutes, tops) who's actions should seem innocent in and of themselves. One character, P2 decides to shoot NPC in the back while the group walks through the woods with her. When P2 does this, L and P1 are off in the woods. They didn't see the shooting happen. Session A ends on that cliffhanger. Session B opens up and the players retire to the basement to discuss the previous session with a character who was not there. I tell them I need their discussion to be at the gaming table because I do not want them to meta-game. If they begin to discuss information that their character could not have known, I want to limit it so the story's suspense is maintained.
F. In sum, when I have my next session, I will explain to the party what I mean by Meta-Gaming and why I want it to stop. I see that I have a complex interaction between simple rules-laywering (allowable, if not annoying) and actual Meta-Gaming. Usually, I use the basement to conduct discussions with players on events that only their characters experience. I do that to prevent others from overhearing what they should not know. I don't want it used as a tool to discuss out of session information. My goal is to maintain the sense of mystery and suspense in session.
Thanks,