Meta-gaming Player

[Kormydigar]

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?

Ah man!!! That one made soda come out my nose!!!! Awesome

Seriously though, during combat is one time that that no character should be making any sub-optimal choices unless that character is not interested in survival. This might happen if the character is being controlled by an enemy trying to conceal the fact or perhaps the character is depressed for some reason and wants to die gloriously in combat. I am not talking about actual metagaming or anything like that. One thing to consider about combat options is the experience of the character vs. the player. For example I have been playing for about 26 years or so. When I create a new 1st level character, he won't have any " real" tactical knowledge except what was learned in training. If I join a game and create and play a 10th level fighter then I will play combats with more " knowledge" .

The problem comes with distinguishing this stuff in actual play. One idea I had was to vary the time given to act in combat based on character level. Very low level adventurers would have to react much quicker than experienced ones to simulate much less tactical understanding. The downside of this is that low level characters forced to make snap decisions wouldn't live long enough to become high level . I suppose if high level adventuers are supposed to be "special" then it might be workable.

 

[billd91]

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? Am I being too much of a control freak?

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).

What does everyone else think?

Olaf the Stout

Are you being too much of a control freak? Yes and no.

For the most part, converting the cash is no big deal and you don't need to play it out. Finding the gems shouldn't be all that hard given the location, nor should paying 500 gp for a 500 gp pearl. The real cost the PC should feel is when he converts that pearl back into liquid cash. That's when you hit him with the conversion cost. How does the merchant make a profit? By selling things for their value but buying them cheaper.

I think there's a good point to be made that the player should back off doing these things unilaterally. He should ask if it's OK before he does so or express his desire to do so and then you can say whether he's successful in his quest for the pearls or not (particularly if the initial appraisals were wrong of the stuff he sold off). But don't play it out with this player. He clearly doesn't want to. That should save you some time to concentrate on other things.

 

[Hussar]

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?

GIzmo, that's just siggable.

 

[dvvega]

Actually Robin D. Laws makes a good point in his Gming booklet ... that all types can fit into a group without a problem as long as the DM is ready for them.

From posts thus far he doesn't seem to be a meta-gamer, more like a user of the rules. The d20 system allows all sorts of players, including those people that play it like a tactical problem. In fact if he is a tactician in combat then what is wrong with that ... there are players out there that enjoy the tactical aspect of a game.

True if he takes too long to deliberate you have the right to remind them of the 6 second issue, but you cannot honestly tell anyone that you can RP a full fledged combat that is supposedly being participated in by expert adventurers in the appropriate time limit. A fully trained Fighter could handle the speed of interchange, but not your average roleplayer.

It is completely unfair (and I'm surprised at the responses thus far) and selfish to force a player to change his play style because you want him to. As a DM you are the facilitator for the game, the creator for the game world. And kicking him out is the antithesis to the social aspect of roleplaying.

By forcing him to change his play style you are in fact behaving like a munchkin player. The munchkin wants to be the best and will use whatever he can get to achieve that. You want your game to be hardcore roleplaying and you're willing to force someone to change or kick him out of your group because of it.

Can you honestly say that no one in your world isn't a tactician? What about the great generals? What about the bodyguards?

If you have a RPing group and a Tactical Player then you need to cater for that player. Either by making his meta-game tactical choices worth something sometimes ... for example the fact that he took Weapon Specialisation might aid them, or the fact that he is carrying the right gear.

When you do combat, give them a tactical set up where this player's meta-gaming might be useful sometimes.

Of course don't do it all the time, but embrace him.

For example in my main group I have:

P1: Tactical Wargamer Type
P2: Hardcore Munchkin
P3: Tactical Roleplayer (roleplays fantastically but doesn't make useless choices in feats etc)
P4: Character Changer (likes to play his latest idea but won't change until he dies or something happens to trigger the character leaving)
P5: Balanced (my wife actually - hates knowing the mechanics but enjoys all aspects mayber RPG a little more than other things.)
P6: 100% Roleplayer (he dislikes combat in general but revels in the RPG)

Now from your point of view P6 would probably not suit this group since most of them have tactical parts to their make-up while P6 doesn't want to get involved. Is that wrong? No ... I create situations where the roleplaying will save them. And the party has learnt that lesson by messing up an RP situation and ending up in a combat they almost got killed in.

The whole point here is that unless the guy is really obnoxious, or has social issues, then you should embrace him. He's like the proverbial fresh breeze to your stagnant roleplayers only game.

Improve your DMing style (I am not saying you are not good, but everyone can learn more) and learn to cater for various types. You will create a richer tapestry for your world and games because suddenly everyone can input into that game. Instead of chomping at the bit with this guy, use it.

Now to the speicifc issue of his money conversion ... have you ever put into play some kind of economic system? If not you cannot curse his conversion of cash to jewels. However my suggestion would be to instigate something, citing that since it has just come up you thought you would expand your world information. And keep in mind that he can't spend his money using gems in general.

Going into a business with your gems will not work. Even an armourer or weaponsmith would reject it. Why?
* no time to go convert the item
* knows they will lose money on coversion (just look at modern conversions)
* trusting someone to convert for them is a risk
* and they don't want to risk become unwitting fences

Just my two cents

 

[buzz]

It is completely unfair (and I'm surprised at the responses thus far) and selfish to force a player to change his play style because you want him to. As a DM you are the facilitator for the game, the creator for the game world. And kicking him out is the antithesis to the social aspect of roleplaying.

QFT, with some caveats.

With all due respect to Mr. Laws, you can't please all of the people all of the time. The best you can do is set reasonable expectations. "Joe, I know you like playing like X, but Y is the way I and the rest of the group tends to play. I can do what I can to accomodate your fun, but you need to keep that in mind."

As long as everyone is still having fun, you're golden. If they're not, sometimes you just have to face the fact that various players' needs are at odds.

 

[Bront]

He has interest in the game, and that's good. The best way to bring him out as a roleplayer is to draw him into the game emotionaly. It might be in combat where some particularly hard to kill monster taunts him, only to escape later. It might be something stealing his gold or an item. Perhaps he actualy spots his slave wife in the servace of a sleazy noble as a heram girl. Give him a reason to get in character more, even if you dangle the metagame rewards ultimately.

As for the "sub optimal choices", a hero shouldn't be making a lot of those. They may not be tactical geniouses always, but they will work with what they have to their best advantage, and honestly, if they aren't, a standard set of appropriate encounters should chew them up and spit them back out. Being more tacticaly minded shouldn't be something that is "counter" to the roleplaying experience.

I usualy view more disruptive metagaming as "Oh, you should do this," constantly, or worse, failure to ever at least stay on topic of the game (OOC game coments are at least game focused).

Of couse, I often find myself helping other players in game, but I approach it more on a level of "This ability does this, and it could be useful," or "Don't forget about x spell you have". And part of that is because I often know the rules significantly better than some other players, and they appreciate me helping them out on occasion, and will ask sometimes as well.

 

[Hussar]

Dvegga makes excellent points IMO. And, true, you can't please everyone all the time, but, then again, assuming people are reasonable (a big assumption sometimes), they can take a back seat once in a while and not get too miffed. If the party spends five straight sessions poncing about shopping, then, well, I'd probably whinge too. OTOH, you can't just have straight hack fests either.

I'm fairly sure that most people understand that and can live with it. So long as everyone gets a bone to gnaw on, everyone's groovy.

 

[mmadsen]

I have a problem with a player who continually meta-games.

The usual cure for meta-gaming is to turn the player's knowledge of the game on its head -- modify monsters away from their Monster Manual stats, etc. -- but classic meta-gaming doesn't seem to be the issue you're facing.

The last session that we played he got a little upset a couple of times. The first time was because I wouldn't let him carry into town the 9 light crossbows and 9 longspears that he had taken from some fiendish locathah that the party had killed. My arguement was how he was going to carry them (never mind that they were coated in sewerage and slime). The rest of the players hadn't even though about taking them but he just saw them as XXgp resale value.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for an adventurer to want to loot, but it's also perfectly reasonable for you to ask, "How are you going to carry nine crossbows?"

The other incident involved him wanting to scribe a spell on a scroll. The party is in the city of Freeport, a reasonably big place. He just wanted to cross off XXgp from his character sheet and then scribe the scroll. I asked where and how he planned to get the paper and materials from. He said that they were common items and he should be able to find them easily.

I see your player as completely in the right here. In the setting, those items are common. There's nothing interesting to play out.

In a Dark Ages campaign, that might have led to some kind of challenge, but in a setting with ample parchment and ink, let him cross off the gold and start scribin'.

This is a fair enough arguement but I think that it is besides the point. What is the point of playing an RPG if you are just going to fast foward past all of the interactions with people that are not explicitly related to the main plot. We only play once a fortnight and he said afterwards that he didn't want the game to be taken up with stuff like that.

Why on earth would you use your limited time to play out the least interesting aspects of the game world when you couuld be playing out the most interesting aspects?

 

[mmadsen]

I am bringing in a roleplaying award as of next session. It will be something along the lines of the GM scores each player from 1-10 each session depending on how well he played his character. This is then multiplied by 20(?)XP and their character level.

I think that could backfire and send an ugly message.

I'd recommend handing out Action Points for anyone who voluntarily plays out a character flaw in a way that's tactically suboptimal but adds to the story. They create a disadvantage for themselves, but the reward counters it, so they feel free to do what's fun for the group.

 

[mmadsen]

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? Am I being too much of a control freak?

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).

There's no reason to believe that the city he's in has three 500-gp silver pearls, there's no reason to believe he judge that they're worth exactly 500 gp, and there's no reason to believe that would be able to make that transaction effortlessly.

I might not roleplay it -- it doesn't sound interesting to act out -- but I'd certainly say something like, You managed to get one silver pearl for 600 gp, another smaller one for 400 gp, and a string of smaller pears for 500 gp. Then, when he went to trade them back for gold, he'd find out he's not quite the negotiator and appraiser he thought he was...

It's not like gems and jewels are as liquid and fungible as the coin of the realm.