Meta-gaming Player

[Jim Hague]

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.

I like Robin's opinions a lot, but this one I just don't agree with - it's not purely a matter of GM accomodation; the player has to make an effort also.

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.

This I totally disagree with - you're essentially saying that Olaf has to change his playstyle to something he doesn't enjoy to accomodate the problem player. Then there's the oft-used but utterly meaningless 'munchkin' being thrown about. Yes, the GM is facilitator, world creator and more...but that doesn't mean that the GM should be held hostage by someone with an incompatible playing style.

And sorry, but kicking out a problem player because they're impacting fun is a perfectly valid tactic. You're perpetuating a Geek Fallacy - Ostracizers Are Evil. If the guy's pulling stunts that aren't fun for the rest of the group, then asking him to leave is entirely acceptable. There's no rule, written or unwritten, that says you must accomodate someone being an ass and doing things they enjoy at the expense of others.

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

I couldn't disagree more. The GM puts a lot of work into creating an enjoyable game - and asking them to bend over backwards for someone being a prat isn't a reasonable thing to ask. And IME, it leads to creating more problems. As buzz said, you can't please everyone.

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.

So instead of being up front, you manipulated the group and socially engineered them to fit your playstyle by creating an insanely difficult combat that almost killed the party? I'm afraid that seems to contradict what you're proposing elsewhere.

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.

Ah, of course...problem players always bring something new to the table. Usuaully it's problems. That's not a fresh breeze you're smelling.

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.

Again, I disagree. Problem players can get out of control easily, and end up costing the game as a whole far more than they contribute. Does that mean there shouldn't be communication an an attempt at accomodation? Of course not. But there comes a point where it's put up or shut up - and I find the style of GMing that tries to accomodate even problem players annoying, to say the least. Again, you're calling on the Geek Fallacies - Ostracizers Are Evil. It's a jake argument.

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

Now these're actually useful suggestions.

 

[buzz]

Jim Hague's post nrought this bit of dvvega's to my attention:

And the party has learnt that lesson...

I know this was already brought up in a semi-recent thread (which may have been lost), but...

Anytime you, as DM, are "teaching players lessions", your game is in very, very dangerous territory, IMO. That was one of the big criticisms I had of the first post.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

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.

Ok. Judging from most of the people's comments on this thread, playing out interactions with shopkeepers, etc., isn't a common thing to do for most people. I do understand their reasons for it and as of last session our group will deal with these interactions via e-mail (if people in my group want to do that at all). I will still play out any major/important interactions. I personally feel that it helps to make the world that the players are living in more real. Obviously I am in the minority in that regard. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions though. I've made my decision and I'll move on.

Paradox42, I took the test a few days ago when I first saw it in the thread. I can't remember the exact percentages (I may go back and retake it and post the results) but my highest area was Storyteller. Method Actor was well down the list, possible second last after Casual Gamer. I own Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering and I understand the differences between the 2 concepts.

As for combat, I don't mean that a Wizard should just stand there taking AoO from all directions while trying to cast a spell on the front line instead of doing something like moving back from combat or casting defensively. What I am talking about is trying to find the optimal placement for the centre of his AoE spell by counting out the squares from 5 or 6 different spots to determine the best result (my player doesn't quite do this, it was just a more extreme example).

What I think is fair is that the Wizard picks where he wants the centre of the AoE spell to be then you work out what squares exactly are hit. The player should know roughly how far in each direction the AoE spell will go so he can get the spell pretty close to the ideal spot but sometimes he may miscalculate slightly and catch an friend by accident or just miss getting a few extra enemies in.

Sure wizards (as in the character, not the player) will know roughly how big their spell will be and should be able to place it relatively accurately. However we are talking about 6 seconds in combat with people constantly moving about. Miscalculations can happen, no matter how many times someone has cast the spell before. Sure they are standing still on your battlemat and you can clearly see how far apart everyone is. However in actuality it is not that simple (in my opinion).

Olaf the Stout

 

[wedgeski]

Sure wizards (as in the character, not the player) will know roughly how big their spell will be and should be able to place it relatively accurately. However we are talking about 6 seconds in combat with people constantly moving about. Miscalculations can happen, no matter how many times someone has cast the spell before. Sure they are standing still on your battlemat and you can clearly see how far apart everyone is. However in actuality it is not that simple (in my opinion).

It goes without saying this is as good an approach as any, especially if your players are on-board. What you've got to be careful of is singling out the spellcaster for special hardship; miscalculated AoE's are all well and good, as long as the fghters and rogues can be victim to similar mishaps (fumbles, for instance).

For myself, I don't particularly like games where (at the extreme) the PC's are as afraid of their spellcaster as they are the bad guys. It might have something to do with the fact that I was once a spellcaster in that kind of game.

 

[fusangite]

To echo what others have said here, this player isn't metagaming. He is gaming.

The rules of the game are the physics of the universe. If the character is observant, he will optimize his effectiveness based on his knowledge of the world.

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

I think this is the real problem here. It sounds to me like you and your other players enjoy an especially detail-oriented style of roleplay where various things like buying and selling objects are played out in careful detail. If I were in a group like this, it would drive me batty. I am all for playing out verbal interactions between PCs and NPCs -- indeed, this is the part of the game I value most -- but I want to get through the inconsequential stuff so I can get onto talking to important NPCs.

The rest of the group, a couple of players in particular, get right into their characters. They make sub-optimal combat choices or say things that they know out-of-character are dumb but are still things that their character would do.

I had a player like this and I found it annoying. Why wouldn't the character know how to position himself so as to get the most attacks of opportunity. If the character is intelligent and observant, he should be able to put himself in tactically optimal positions -- after all, his life is at stake.

Remember: players are only their characters about 4 hours a week. The characters are themselves 168 hours a week. Chances are that anything the player comes up with, the character will have had more than enough time and incentive to figure out for himself.

The meta-gamer seems to treat the game as some sort of tactical wargame. I understand that this is a valid way to play and is originally where D&D came from in the first place. That doesn't really help my situation though!

To continue my thought, PCs are people who fight for a living. Adventuring is their only means of financial support and, on top of that, every time they adventure they risk death. Why wouldn't they know tactics down to the minutest detail. Why wouldn't a mage learn to eyeball exactly where to drop a fireball for maximum effect?

It there any hope of turning him around to a similar playstyle as everyone else or do you think that this is just a situation where he just wants to play a different sort of game to the rest of us and it is best if we just part ways?

Maybe. How frustrated is he with what the other players spend time on?

The meta-gamer has come up with a background which is a step in the right direction and better than what some players do. However the background is that his wife was taken by slavers. He knows that he doesn't have enough money or power to rescue her so he took up adventuring to try and fix that problem. This conveniently matches in with his meta-gaming wishes for more loot and XP.

To be honest, I can't think of a lot of motivations that would cause people to go out and risk death week after week, unless they were planning to spend all that gold on something pretty important.

As for the XP, I think the other posters have covered that well. There are lots of ways to award experience points; it sounds like you might want to tweak yours.

Personally, I think if someone took my wife I would be trying to get her back at all costs.

It sounds to me like this character is a cool, long-term, strategic thinker who is able to set aside his emotions and develop clear-headed plans designed to have the maximum possible chance of success. Such people do exist in the real world. It sounds like this fellow is doing quite an adequate job of playing such an individual.

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).

Why not just figure out how many of them he could explain his character carrying and then calculate encumbrance? Crossbows are worth 35gp each new. 315gp is a lot of money -- it would pay for quite a few mercenaries to attack slavers. Why would someone leave 315gp lying on the ground just because it smelled bad? Any low level character I had wouldn't.

The rest of the players hadn't even though about taking them but he just saw them as XXgp resale value.

This guy is working all the time, trying to raise enough money and get powerful enough to take on these slavers. I just don't see sewage getting in the way of a money-raising opportunity like this.

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'm inclined to agree. Unless roleplaying an interaction with a parchment merchant is a whole lot of fun for the group, it seems like this could be dispensed with through a few Gather Information and Appraise checks.

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.

The interactions in the main plot. For a lot of people, enjoying an RPG is like a good movie or novel. Imagine if an hour of X-Men II had been devoted to the X-Men interacting with cashiers and waitresses.

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. The rest of the group didn't have a problem with it but he just seemed to be in a hurry to keep everything moving forward at a rapid rate.

I wouldn't characterize his desire as for rapid play, more like non-glacial.

After only 2 sessions of about 4-4.5 hours each he asked when we were going to level up because it seemed to be taking ages. (As a side note the party levelled, going from 3rd to 4th, halfway through the next session)

Here, I'm with you. It's supposed to be about three sessions per level, I recall.

I can tell that our playstyles are very different, but do you think there are ways that I can keep him happy, without destroying everyone else's fun?

Let me ask this: would your other players have less fun if NPC interaction were limited to that which is germaine to the story? Would your other players miss the interactions with the cashiers, waitresses and beggars? If not, perhaps tweaking your GMing style might lead to an overall happy group.

P.S. Apologies if it sounds a little bitchy and one-sided.

Your version was not one-sided at all. You clearly presented the situation in a very balanced way, otherwise I would not have ended up identifying so strongly with the unhappy player.

 

[Hussar]

The interactions in the main plot. For a lot of people, enjoying an RPG is like a good movie or novel. Imagine if an hour of X-Men II had been devoted to the X-Men interacting with cashiers and waitresses.

Well, it wouldn't have made the movie any worse.

 

[fusangite]

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.

If that's the DM's goal. If the DM's goal is to play a game a particular way because that's how he likes to play it, it's his damned game. I could GM my games in a way that interested a broader cross-section of players but that would entail sacrificing my enjoyment of the game. Given that my time is just as valuable as everyone else's, why should I subordinate my enjoyment to that of others if I don't have to?

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.

Agreed.

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.

Wrong. Is it time to repost the link to the geek social fallacies again? Being socially functional is about matching the right activities with the right people. It is not about matching all people with all activities.

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

These are excellent suggestions.

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.

As others have intimated, you rock Gizmo.

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

Nor me. I had a player who got really into the Indie-RPG/Forge scene and became unable to tolerate a campaign lasting more than about 8 sessions. For him it was all about story generation. The fellow we're dealing with here is nowhere near that extreme.

I think it might be useful, Olaf, for you to ask yourself, when you play out a scene, whether this scene would make it into a novel or movie. If not, you might want to re-evaluate your assessment of yourself as a story teller.

 

[fusangite]

Well, it wouldn't have made the movie any worse.

I was referring to X2 not X3. I'm with you on X3.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, I meant X2. I live in Japan, X3 hasn't even hit the trailers here yet.

 

[fusangite]

Heh, I meant X2. I live in Japan, X3 hasn't even hit the trailers here yet.

Oh man... if you didn't like X2, I cannot imagine how much you will hate X3. It is one of the worst superhero movies ever. You keep wishing they would get back to some tired Hollywood formula just so that there is something animating the film.