Meta-gaming Player

[Hussar]

How did he know that his appraise checks for the items were correct? How did he know that the piece of jewellery (from a looted crypt) didn't belong to a Freeport noble that had been buried there and may get him into trouble when he went to sell it? What if he had to deal with some sort of seedy jeweller that was out to rip him off? None of that may have happened but the option for it to happen was taken out of my hands.

One of the party members was born in Freeport, so finding a jeweller/gem cutter shouldn't be an issue but I still think that is beside the point. He still shouldn't just say "Oh, and by the way, I swapped all my stuff over in the meantime." I can only see this sort of thing getting out of hand if it continues.

I totally agree with this. The player in this case, IMO, has overstepped his bounds. Mostly for exactly the reasons you outlined. The player has stolen your thunder.

Maybe.

You could actually have that kind of thing turn around and bite him later. When he goes to buy something, or change those pearls into cash, you could bring things up then. It's not like he's going to be buying beer with a 500 gp pearl, so, trying to get that magical whosit with a white rock might truly annoy the wizzie or cleric he's trying to buy from.

I would emphatically state that anything over 100 gp is off limits for simple buying and selling. Except maybe armor. And just move on from there.

Just a thought though, if half this guy's wealth is tied up in coin, he's pretty under powered for his level. Teach him why its a bad idea to haul around coin.

 

[wedgeski]

True, not all of what I posted is meta-gaming in the true sense. Characters in-game would be aware that weapons have resale value so taking them is not really meta-gaming. Automatically converting their value into GP is meta-gaming since you are assuming (meta-gaming) that you can always get half the market value when you sell it.

This isn't meta-gaming so much as bypassing the DM, and your gripes about this are IMO perfectly valid. The thing is, this player can *tell* you whatever he likes, but at the end of the day, whatever you *tell* him back is what actually happens.

So, if he announces that he has converted his cash into pearls, you're perfectly within your right to email him back and say, "Fine, you lose 25% of your gold to the transaction. The merchants you were dealing with convinced you the pearls were worth more than they actually were." If he then responds with a complaint, tell him that if had RP'd the encounter he would have got to make his checks and might not have been conned. That'll be language that he understands!

Also things like trying to work out the optimal course to take in combat to aviod attacks of opportunity or get the most amount of people in area affect spells is meta-gaming in my opinion. These are things that a character in a game wouldn't necessarily know about.

Ah, I think you're on different territory here. At my table a fighter certainly *would* know how to avoid unnecessary attacks, and a mage would probably have had it drilled into him from a very early age how vulnerable he is when he's standing there glassy-eyed, waving his hands around, trying to cast a magic missile. Also, there's nothing about carefully placing an AoE that can't be justified by the same rationale.

Out of interest, I'm assuming you're using a battle-mat, so how do you *stop* players maxing an AoE? Do you introduce some kind of random factor?

At the end of the day, this is just a clash of different playing styles, which is probably what 90% of all RPG conflicts boil down to. I wish you luck!

 

[paradox42]

Olaf, I would recommend you take the test yourself and see what your own play style is pegged as. You might be surprised by the results, and it might give you some idea of where to find common ground with this player.

Personally, I would be strongly dissatisfied with your game as you've explained it; I'm 83% Storyteller as pegged by the quiz, and I'd never willingly play out interactions with shopkeepers down to the level of haggling over details or picking out one particular staff over another. As Conaill said, while that may be interesting to the character, it's not at all interesting to me, even if it's my character. I don't read a story to discover how shopping works in this made-up world, I read the story to see the events that make these characters stand out from everybody else- why they are the focus of the story instead of Joe Shopkeeper, for example. Even running the game- and I do usually DM as opposed to play- I never do this unless a player really wants to, and in such a case I'd usually prefer to do it out of game (such as over email or instant messaging/ICQ).

You sound like a very high Method Actor to me, as opposed to Storyteller; perhaps you've confused those two styles. And with me being only 25% Method Actor, I'd likely find your game style highly at odds with my own (like I said). My point here is that your own play style may not be what you think it is.

As for your idea that characters wouldn't know how to take advantage of combat rules such as AOOs and catching multiple opponents in area effects- why would they not know that? Isn't it to be expected that if you try casting a spell next to the guy holding the big nasty sword, and he's your enemy, that he's going to try hitting you with it? Isn't it to be expected that if you try running past those guards to reach the vampire that they'll try to stop you (or at least get licks in as you go)? And how could a wizard not know that his Fireball is going to produce an explosion "about this big," and thus be able to estimate that he can catch more enemies in it if he places it just so? Counting squares certainly is meta-gaming of a sort, but why shouldn't the characters be able to make similar tactical decisions, since we all know the squares are just an abstraction of the true positions in combat anyway? These are questions worth thinking about in terms of incorporating different play styles into one's game.

 

[Jacen]

He doesn't really meta-game from a combat perspective in that he's got the MM memorised and uses that knowledge to do things that his character wouldn't necessarily know (like knowing that trolls are immune to fire for example). What he does do though is treat combat like a tactical wargame, trying to optimise everything he does and also trying to tell other players what to do in order to get the best outcome.

In my opinion, each combat round is 6 seconds long. You shouldn't be able to sit around and discuss where everyone will move, what attack options everyone will take, etc., during combat. You can yell a few quick things across the battlefield but not have an in-depth discussion about the optimal point to centre your spell. Just pick a centre point and be done with it.

And how about the fact that wizard that casts the spell has been studying area efect spells maybe years. And the two figter in the group has been fighting co-operatively 10 years and two years with the druid and shape changing druid in the group. They know each other and what tactics they are going to use in different situatuion. They have to because their lives have been depending on that for years. How to take that into account when giving 6 seconds to each player say what they do?

 

[Jacen]

A lot of in my opinion talk to follow =). And besides I am not a DM ;-)

I would keep the size of the xp reward fairly small (somewhere is the range of 50 xp per level). You don't want your video gamer to see this as a punishment for his play style...

But it is. It is same to reward or detact XP. That is one thing that I don't like. There are some players that keep acting their charater and their doings and thus taking time from all. It is not so nice to wait 15-30 mins when someone is just getting in their character. Or when when you are trying to act in charater alone somewhere and suddenly the other arrives and there you are waiting again. Well that is quite extreme but seen it happening.

IMO roleplaying is not being in character all times and acting all interactions. That is nice if you are more diplomatic and smart than your character.

And if he's missing out on a big chunk of xp that the other players are getting, that is exactly what he will see it as.

No need to lose big amounts to get that viewpoint. It is easily seen that getting some actor course IRL is giving you more XP in game. And what is that? Well that is just not rewading what character does but rewarding how player to that and that is wrong - after all XP is reward for character not for player.

D&D is a simple game trying to make it real life -simulator is going to end badly.

My meta-gaming player just sent me an e-mail with his new level-upped character. He also mentioned that he had converted his excess gold in 500gp each silver pearls!

This annoys me a little. Does anyone else have an issue with their players simply telling you that they're converting their gold to gems or something similar?

Big city. It shouldn't be a problem. Just 100-100 change ratio might be a problem. Now I would let it go, but notify that from now on there will be comission fee. And later in smaller place they might not have enough money to give back from 500 gp pearl - if they even accept gems as payment. Money has a clear value gems need to be apprised with corret skill. Skill that merchant/clerkboy might not be good.

[/QUOTE]Personally I would play out the situation with the money lender/exchanger (either in-game or via e-mail). The player would not necessarily get full value for the exchange (the money lender has to make a profit on the exchange too!) and they may not be able to get exactly what they want either. For example, certain precious stones/gems may simply not be available in the area (silver pearls probably would be though since Freeport is on an island) or they may cost more than they are worth due to demand for them (as spell components for example). [/QUOTE]

Note that casters needs spellcomponents. Expensive component means that spell is not used often. Missing or really hard components means that spell IS NOT used at all. Thus you highly limit the efficiency of spellcasters. Or would you like to play caster that just got 3rd level spells and took fireball. "There are no bats on this continent so you can't get the bat guano needed as spell component." Or that no one has gem expencive enough to cast rise dead. That is OK if players know from the start that game is mostly dead and done type.

Had I been DMing I would have wanted him to note about the cahnge and maybe roll a diplomacy/bluff/sense motive/apprise to see what excange ratio he does get, but no roleplaying unless the shopkeeper is going to be reoccuring NPC or plot hook.

But this is just me.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

He doesn't really meta-game from a combat perspective in that he's got the MM memorised and uses that knowledge to do things that his character wouldn't necessarily know (like knowing that trolls are immune to fire for example). What he does do though is treat combat like a tactical wargame, trying to optimise everything he does and also trying to tell other players what to do in order to get the best outcome.

In my opinion, each combat round is 6 seconds long. You shouldn't be able to sit around and discuss where everyone will move, what attack options everyone will take, etc., during combat. You can yell a few quick things across the battlefield but not have an in-depth discussion about the optimal point to centre your spell. Just pick a centre point and be done with it.

Then that has a simple solution; if he takes more than a realistic amount of time deciding what to do, then he delays his action until he's made up his mind.
In low/early level games I think 30 seconds is plenty of time to decide what you want to do.

 

[der_kluge]

Just out of interest Der Kluge, I got him to take this quiz (along with the rest of the group). He came up 75% Butt-Kicker (no surprises there) and 75% Storyteller (very strange). I have Robin Law's Guide to Good Gamemastering so I might re-read it and see what I can do to try and improve the situation.

Olaf the Stout

That doesn't really surprise me on the storyteller side - he's constantly propelling the game forward to advance the story.

 

[hong]

Just out of interest Der Kluge, I got him to take this quiz (along with the rest of the group). He came up 75% Butt-Kicker (no surprises there) and 75% Storyteller (very strange). I have Robin Law's Guide to Good Gamemastering so I might re-read it and see what I can do to try and improve the situation.

He wants to play Halo, or Jade Empire, or various similar games where you kick ass and take names but with a definite underlying storyline guiding events.

 

[buzz]

First off, I'll sorta leave aside the issue (brought up by someone else) of whether your player is "roleplaying" or not, as I don't want to threadcrap. Just let me state: I think he is.

I am bringing in a roleplaying award as of next session.

If this player likes to minmax (as in, maxmizing reward and minimizing risk, not as in "munchkin"), he'll likely find a way to minmax his rp'ing rewards. He may very well just find out what he has to do in-game to earn the rewards; it's unlikely that he'll fundamentally change his playstyle.

And that, IMO, is an important point. I don't think the answer is to try and change the player via mechanics that affect the character. You're just asking for trouble. If his style's conflict with the rest of the group's is genuinely affecting the game, you simply need to talk to him.

The important thing to remember is: he isn't doing anything "wrong," per se. D&D specifically rewards his playstyle. It presents an array of choices, some good, some bad; he's choosing the good ones. The issue is simply that he's the only one in your group doing this.

Ergo, I'd lay out what kind of game it is that you're running, and make it clear that it's not going to change anytime soon. See how he feels.

The other thing I'm curious about is: is this player unhappy with the game? Or are you (and the other players) simply unhappy with him?

 

[gizmo33]

All the great warriors and generals in history were metagamers. None of them would have ever been caught making "sub-optimal" combat choices. For example, when Ghengis Khan decided he was going to invade China was he doing it for some other reason than XP and GP? Was he doing it because he took the "Khan" prestige class and thought it would be in character?

And when he got there and found the cities surrounded by walls did he way "well, my character's a Mongol so I guess I'll just do the dumb thing and ride around the walls shouting while I get shot at all day" No! He looked through his Chinese copy of the Player's Handbook until he found the chapter on "Siege Engines" and then he built one or a hundred. Then he killed everyone who didn't surrender because he needed the XP to level up.

Ok, granted, that's the real world, not some fluffy Dragonlance. It's possible that your player is perfectly roleplaying a warrior.

He is a stark contrast to the rest of the group and it kind of stands out.

Well, yea, I guess Ghengis Khan doesn't belong in every party. I suppose in a party of Kender that want to roleplay their tea ceremony, he can be pretty annoying.