Was I being a dick to do this.

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Because you are looking at it wrong. You are still setting out to blame the DM.

The players, none of them, were required to participate in the test. The rogue character's player FORCED the rest into it.

The GM forced the players into it. He set up the storm, the cave, he admits he did it. The rogue was responding to what the GM had laid out.

You are missing the point entirely. The rogue acted badly, okay cool but the GM and the players acted just as bad. This isn't about where the blame lies, it's about whether the GM was a dick to set a trap. The answer is yes.

Yeah, you are the same kind of person as this player from that next statement. You seem to be metagamer that thinks the pace of the game is set by the books.

Who's the troll now. You either missed the point again or you're trying to snag an aggressive response.

A noble attempt, but some people just have a giant chip on their shoulder; this guy has already made up his mind that the rogue's player is the victim here, and nothing you do or say can point out to him the simple reality that each of us is personally responsible for our own actions.

I suggest you let it drop; it's clear that this argument is going nowhere fast.

Heh, thanks for the insult. Pot. kettle. black.

This is veering real far into the hypothetical for me.

The point I'm making is this. Sometimes there are other reasons for peoples bad behaviour and people should be dealt with courteously. It's not hard not to be a dick. It's not hard to talk to people about disagreements and then if all else fails ask them to leave.

You'll be disappointed, I fear, because this is a specific play style that appeals to a lot of people.

I agree but in this case it was somebody's pet peeve for metagamers that was being played out. There was ulterior motives behind the character's consequences. I hope this isn't a preferred play style.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Heh, thanks for the insult. Pot. kettle. black.

Hey, I have nothing against you, personally. You just have your mind made up and no amount of evidence that it was the player being an ass is going to convince you, it seems. We could uncover evidence that this guy bathes in the blood of babies and you'd still be defending him and his bad behaviour in the face of a 'dick DM' or whatever.

The plain fact is that we just don't have enough to go on. None of us were there, but given the information presented, this DMs behaviour seems justified and perfectly acceptable.

Many other posters have pointed this out, but some people react better to being shown how not to do things rather than told. For all we know, maybe he [the DM] tried that and it didn't work. Different people have different learning styles.

In any case it shouldn't be the DMs job to babysit this clown. He was acting immature and got put in his place. End of story. Was it fair? Maybe, maybe not. That's life.

 

[fanboy2000]

The GM forced the players into it. He set up the storm, the cave, he admits he did it. The rogue was responding to what the GM had laid out.

You and I have very different definitions for force. I do not believe that designing an encounter to be very difficult and having NPCs outright say as much is forcing. I realize that some players equate being told not to do something is a hint that it should be done, but I want to point out that the majority of the group apparently rejects that idea.

Tricking the players into difficult encounters by encouraging them to believe the fight will be easier than it is, that's being a dick. Telling the players that a fight will be difficult, when it is difficult, so far from being a dick it's practically orbiting another star. While the OP uses the word trick, I find it very hard to apply it to a situation where the NPCs say the encounter will be tough, and it's a tough encounter. That's not tricking, that's truth in advertising.

In fact, the rogue seemed to think that the DM was being a dick and basing his decisions on the notion that the DM created a world filled with liars and sissies.

I actually think this was a good way of handling things. What better way to show players that the NPCs are know what they are talking about than by having them correctly state the facts of an encounter? Sure, you could say beforehand "if an NPC says it's going to be a touch fight, you should believe them", but then the DM's foreclosed the possibility of creating an NPC who is a mistaken, or downright rotten.

I agree but in this case it was somebody's pet peeve for metagamers that was being played out. There was ulterior motives behind the character's consequences. I hope this isn't a preferred play style.

I would like to point out that the rogue was incorrectly metagaming. Orcs in Eberron are not cannon fodder. It's a selling point of the setting, and the rogue had access to that info.

That said, I think the best way to combat metagaming is the create situations where metagaming fails to deliver the correct result. Telling people not to metagame when metagaming delivers results is counter-productive.

Also, the players are, quite often, the DMs entertainment. Watching a player's reaction to the situations I create is a major part of the fun for me. I don't think that makes me a bad person.

I like handling things in game, as they add flavor to the world and give the players choice in how they play their PCs. The encounter was doable, avoidable, and fit the flavor of the setting and session. If the encounter was unavoidable, clearly lethal, and stuck out like a sore thumb, I would agree with you. But to me, this is the sort of thing that makes RPGs different from other games. Players have more choices and wider variety of consequences. The players didn't die, they ran away and learned something. The rogue left the group later for an unrelated reason. Frankly, it seems to have gone-over fine.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Hey, I have nothing against you, personally. You just have your mind made up and no amount of evidence that it was the player being an ass is going to convince you, it seems. We could uncover evidence that this guy bathes in the blood of babies and you'd still be defending him and his bad behaviour in the face of a 'dick DM' or whatever.

That's untrue, I have repeatedly acknowledged bad behaviour by the player. The disagreement lies in whether or not setting a trap to root out a playstyle you personally don't like is a dick move. Also, when a group of people gang up on another person if that's also being a dick.

I'm afraid an eye for an eye just doesn't cut it.

You and I have very different definitions for force.

I understand your point, however the motive of the GM is what I was referring to as forced. However, I disagree with you that it's okay to set a trap in order to root out a particular play style.

Perhaps it's an ideological thing. I tend to think entrapment, no matter the situation to be dickish. I also tend to think making fun of people behind their backs to be dickish. There is clearly more going on in that group and with that player than is being said. I can only go on what the dude has said and his attitude towards the player before and after the fact is very cringe-worthy. If we can't agree on that then we won't agree on anything.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

That's untrue, I have repeatedly acknowledged bad behaviour by the player. The disagreement lies in whether or not setting a trap to root out a playstyle you personally don't like is a dick move. Also, when a group of people gang up on another person if that's also being a dick.

I'm afraid an eye for an eye just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps it's an ideological thing. I tend to think entrapment, no matter the situation to be dickish.

You acknowledge his bad behaviour, but you don't hold him responsible for it. His own actions. They're his to decide and nobody else.

As for the 'trap,' for what it's worth, metagaming is not a popular playstyle, widely despised by DMs everywhere, with good reason. There is a lot of advice in books, on blogs, and in forums on how to avoid it, and teach players why it's not universally acceptable. This guy HAD to know that the rest of the group wasn't like that (they clearly weren't, both by description and inference), by that point in their adventuring careers.

If this player wasn't happy unless he was metagaming, then he should have realised that maybe he ought to seek gaming enjoyment elsewhere, because there are groups that like that sort of thing. I'm not even calling it flat-out wrong.

That's up to him though (provided the rest of the group was still tolerating him), and if he wanted something else, he should leave the group. End of story.

He didn't though. Instead, he insisted on dragging every other player at the table into his metagame dungeon crawl, clearly against their better judgement. They were being tolerant though. In the interest of party cohesion, and in the interest of cooperation and teamwork. What did he do in return?

He shoved their noses in it.

And what are they supposed to do? Casually allow this unstable, metagaming wanker to ruin what may have taken them months to achieve in-game? He seems like the type to just slit everyone's throat in their sleep, out of spite. No, those characters, you tie up. That isn't ganging up, it's self-preservation. They tied up the character, not the player.

I wouldn't have even tolerated this guy even that long, personally. We've kicked players out of my group for less in the past. "Here is the way we like to do things. Play along, or GTFO."

I don't think that's unfair, and yeah, maybe this guy could have done it the way my group does, but he didn't. Maybe that's for the best (he could have taken it personally). Maybe he thought this player was still "redeemable" and if shown the error of his ways, would come 'round. I don't call that being a dick. I call that tolerance and patience.

You are oversimplifying this argument into a false black-and-white scenario, and you are implying motivations to actions that you have no way of knowing for sure. You don't know what the atmosphere at the table was like, or the group's "spirit" for lack of a better term.

 

[Barastrondo]

The point I'm making is this. Sometimes there are other reasons for peoples bad behaviour and people should be dealt with courteously. It's not hard not to be a dick. It's not hard to talk to people about disagreements and then if all else fails ask them to leave.

And I don't have a problem with that principle when it's played out fairly. But it needs to play out fairly. Either we assume that the GM may also have other reasons for his behavior and cut him some slack, or we hold the player to the exact same "don't be a dick" standard in the first place.

I agree but in this case it was somebody's pet peeve for metagamers that was being played out. There was ulterior motives behind the character's consequences. I hope this isn't a preferred play style.

It's not that uncommon a pet peeve: there are lot of people who ask players to engage with a world as it's presented. This may mean paying attention to GM exposition of things like "orcs are not necessarily evil here. It may mean requiring players to pay attention to things their characters notice in-game. For instance, if a GM says "This owlbear looks almost twice the size you'd expect it to, and its eyes are flickering with some sort of purplish fire", that GM is essentially saying "This owlbear may likely be much more dangerous than the book-standard owlbear." If a player ignores that and say "Oh, it's an owlbear, they only have about five hit dice, we can take it easy" -- and then gets angry when it turns out the owlbear does not have five hit dice, and is as dangerous as the in-character description instead of the Monster Manual stats -- I'd be pretty peevish myself. The player is choosing not to directly listen to me in favor of metagame knowledge, no matter how erroneous. Not only is that a dubious in-character decision, it's kinda rude.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I have to say that in the circumstances, most characters I've ever played would have investigated the cave.

Not because I'm metagaming. Simply because they're adventurers.

I too would have said "cmon guys, let's get some loot". Getting loot is practically the raison d'etre of half the adventurers in the world.

I too would have said "how tough can it be?" because finding out the answer to that question is what makes an adventurer an adventurer.

So - the only real mistake this guy makes is that he's starting from a metagame angle. All the assumptions from that metagame are entirely phraseable as motivations of a wholly immersed character.

Given that, the corrective behaviour that is going to work is to point out to him when he phrases his character motivations as metagame that he should phrase them as in game character motivations instead. "Let's find some treasure" "how dangerous can it be" and "lets not just sit about in a cave and be bored" are all exactly the same responses you would get from a roleplayer playing a treasure hungry adventurer. So who cares what the thoughts behind them are? Just stop the guy wrecking immersion and get on with it.

 

[GameDoc]

I'm starting to think the OP's real dick move wasn't what he did to his player. It was starting this thread that has everyone arguing and just won't seem to die...

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

And I don't have a problem with that principle when it's played out fairly. But it needs to play out fairly. Either we assume that the GM may also have other reasons for his behavior and cut him some slack, or we hold the player to the exact same "don't be a dick" standard in the first place.

That is my whole point. The responsibility and blame lies with everybody at the table. As I've said, repeatedly, the rogue acted badly, the GM acted badly and in the end the other players acted badly. The question wasn't, who's fault is who's, it was "was I a dick".

It's not that uncommon a pet peeve: there are lot of people who ask players to engage with a world as it's presented. This may mean paying attention to GM exposition of things like "orcs are not necessarily evil here. It may mean requiring players to pay attention to things their characters notice in-game. For instance, if a GM says "This owlbear looks almost twice the size you'd expect it to, and its eyes are flickering with some sort of purplish fire", that GM is essentially saying "This owlbear may likely be much more dangerous than the book-standard owlbear." If a player ignores that and say "Oh, it's an owlbear, they only have about five hit dice, we can take it easy" -- and then gets angry when it turns out the owlbear does not have five hit dice, and is as dangerous as the in-character description instead of the Monster Manual stats -- I'd be pretty peevish myself. The player is choosing not to directly listen to me in favor of metagame knowledge, no matter how erroneous. Not only is that a dubious in-character decision, it's kinda rude.

I don't see that as an excuse for bad behaviour. As I said before, an eye for an eye doesn't cut it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I should have taken my own advice and abandoned this thread.

Eye for an eye implies that it's done out of vengeance, and it really doesn't sound that way to me at all. You're still oversimplifying this situation into black-and-whites and it's not that simple.

From your responses, it really sounds like this has happened to you at some point in the past. Do you want to talk about it? Will that make you feel better? I'll listen. I'm serious.

In the meantime, you aren't saying anything new. We don't agree with your assessment of the situation, so unless you have something new to say, we all might as well drop this.