Was I being a dick to do this.

[Saeviomagy]

Since a solo 4 levels above you is more than beatable, the rogue was technically right.

So I don't think there was really any lesson learned here... apart from the rest of the party are a bunch of wusses and your rogue has terrible tactics (2 dailies and an action point on the first monster in a dungeon in the first round?)

 

[Barastrondo]

Roxolan[/MENTION];5454424]As for the people in this thread saying that metagaming should be punished in-game with grudge monsters/traps, well, I expect some of you will be immortalized in grognard.txt.

"Grudge monster" isn't necessarily the assumed context. Let's say that in the DM's notes there is a simple sentence "Orcs in upper portion of cave, can warn about perils below; dungeon below roughly Level (party's level +5)." In such a case, the "grudge monster" would in fact be lightly merciful.

The role of the GM as arbiter does kind of cut both ways. There is the need to be "fair" by generally giving players the opportunity to confront things that are challenging but of an appropriate challenge level, but there's also the need to be "fair" by treating their decisions seriously. That means presenting situations where good judgment will, dice willing, provide you with better results than what bad judgment gets you. Now, you can assume that every decision a player makes is good judgment by reason of it's made by a player, but I don't think that's a universally understood group contract.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Lesson learnt: The guy who got the party into trouble can't be counted on, when the excrement strikes the rotational air movement device. I hate metagaming. I hate when players try to subvert the rules.

Congratulations, you effectively ostracized a player because he/she doesn't play the way you deem fit. That's a dick move, you could have addressed this any number of ways but instead you felt he needed to be singled out and consequently now is not trusted at the table.

 

[DracoSuave]

How can anyone honestly claim something so obviously telegraphed as this powerful monster is a grudge monster or a dick move?

The DM gave the players every bit of information they needed to make the correct decision. They were told the area contained monsters and that they would be out of their element. They were told -multiple times- this was the case.

And one player decided--against the group's general consensus--to cajole the team into going anyways. This is like sticking your hand in battery acid marked with a sign saying 'Warning, avoid contct; Acid.' It's not dick DMing. Dick DMing is warning the players that things will be too easy down in ther, and then pulling out Tiamat. Dick DMing is changing the next encounter to dick over a guy who says 'The DM won't send anything too hard against us.'

That isn't what happened.

What happened was: The DM gave the players correct information, and the rogue ignored correct information based on incorrect metagaming. He ignored the game in favor of a false metagame.

That's. Bad. Play. Not bad as in rude, or bad as in unseemly, or bad as in 'That's the wrong way to play D&D' but bad as in 'unskilled' or 'prone to error' or 'the opposite of good' or 'dumb.'

It's the DM's place to create a challenging world, to enable the players to enjoy compelling stories. It is not the DM's place to make up for players being dumb.

The DM gave the players a fair opportunity to learn what was down there, a fair opportunity to avoid it, a fair opportunity to understand it might be too tough for them. He gave them all the information they required. The rogue ignored it because he belived the DM wouldn't set them up against things they could nto beat; and the rogue was right--the DM didn't set them up against this monster. The party set themselves up against the monster.

The DM said 'This is too powerful' and the party chose to engage it anyways.

That's not dick DMing, that's giving the players exactly what they should rightfully expect.

Congratulations, you effectively ostracized a player because he/she doesn't play the way you deem fit. That's a dick move, you could have addressed this any number of ways but instead you felt he needed to be singled out and consequently now is not trusted at the table.

The rogue was being an uncooperative and selfish dolt. What about the other players, the ones who wanted to get on with the story, who trusted the DM to get them the level and treasure they needed to overcome the adversities they had plans, the ones who did not try to kill things 'for the xp' and actually immersed themselves in the fiction provided?

Do those players have to take a backseat because one wants to be a dolt? Seriously?

The rogue's actions singled him out. Everything is a direct and natural result of that. Let's not victimize the rogue here; he was sacrificing the wishes of the group for his own bad reasoning. D&D is a social and cooperative endeavor. That implies one needs to have social saavy (don't force the party into situations they know are unwise) and cooperation (sometimes, you suck it up and go with the group).

Now, you can assume that every decision a player makes is good judgment by reason of it's made by a player, but I don't think that's a universally understood group contract.

This. No amount of metagaming will ever be a good excuse to do something that is absolutely addlebrained.

 

[ffy]

a group of orc hunters are spooked out by some ruins does not equate itself to horrible dangers in any adventurer's mindset.

though if one was to metagame logically here:
1) to be a standard encounter worth experience, the orcs must be of about the same power level as the party
2) they are very scared of what lies ahead, because they would probably die if it attacked them
3) the players should also be scared, because they are of a similar power level to the orcs, and would also probably die if the monster attacked them

 

[DracoSuave]

How is this a metagame trap?

It's an in game consequence. In game, the rogue ignored warnings of danger. In game, he found danger, as was promised.

That's not metagaming in the slightist. That's pure in game.

That's why it's not dickery, it's -fair- and the product of willing player agency, with no attempt to defraud the players.

Player agency should be rewarded as appropriate, always.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

The rogue was being an uncooperative and selfish dolt. What about the other players, the ones who wanted to get on with the story, who trusted the DM to get them the level and treasure they needed to overcome the adversities they had plans, the ones who did not try to kill things 'for the xp' and actually immersed themselves in the fiction provided?

Do those players have to take a backseat because one wants to be a dolt? Seriously?

The rogue's actions singled him out. Everything is a direct and natural result of that. Let's not victimize the rogue here; he was sacrificing the wishes of the group for his own bad reasoning. D&D is a social and cooperative endeavor. That implies one needs to have social saavy (don't force the party into situations they know are unwise) and cooperation (sometimes, you suck it up and go with the group).

As the DM, you know the guy with all the story, he could have said "There is nothing in the cave" or something to that effect or how about "Come on dude, I got your back and will hook you up in due time". He could have handled the issue a million other ways that would not have ostracized the player.

Does this player deserve to be socially reprimanded and singled out because his play-style is considered wrong? Seriously?

Yes it is a social game and in this situation the GM was not socially savvy and neither were the players. You may disagree but being a dick to a perceived dick is still being a dick.

Just for the record, for somebody who is comfortable throwing around a lot of insults about peoples intelligence, you aren't coming off all that bright. People in glass houses and all that.

 

[Ryujin]

Congratulations, you effectively ostracized a player because he/she doesn't play the way you deem fit. That's a dick move, you could have addressed this any number of ways but instead you felt he needed to be singled out and consequently now is not trusted at the table.

Which, given the way that he was acting IN GAME, is precisely how his CHARACTER should have been treated.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Which, given the way that he was acting IN GAME, is precisely how his CHARACTER should have been treated.

If you think that is an appropriate way to treat people and will not lead to more and worse OOC behaviour then all the power to you. However, speaking from experience, you never single out anybody and you especially don't pull something like that.

If the player is metagaming then it's not a problem that should be solved in game. If the player is at odds with the group then as a group it should be worked out and the player should never be put in a situation by the guy with the most power at the table (the GM) where he will reprimanded like a child. I imagine the player would have felt pretty having his character gagged and paraded around as ill-convinced example to "those who don't play the way the GM wants".

 

[Ryujin]

If you think that is an appropriate way to treat people and will not lead to more and worse OOC behaviour then all the power to you. However, speaking from experience, you never single out anybody and you especially don't pull something like that.

If the player is metagaming then it's not a problem that should be solved in game. If the player is at odds with the group then as a group it should be worked out and the player should never be put in a situation by the guy with the most power at the table (the GM) where he will reprimanded like a child. I imagine the player would have felt pretty having his character gagged and paraded around as ill-convinced example to "those who don't play the way the GM wants".

And my experience tells me otherwise. Sometimes it is appropriate to give a player a mental head-shake, in game, to remind him that you're playing the game and not the numbers. Pulling the player back into the game, by demonstrating that it's what's happening in the game that matters, is the best way to go.

Watch the movie "Dorkness Rising"