Was I being a dick to do this.

[Lindeloef]

[...]
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".

To be fair, it is not clear if the gagging part was done by the DM or by the other Players as a revenge for leading in this Encouter.

 

[kaomera]

I don't think you where actually being a dick, but it does seem like you stamped on the player's expectations of the game. Now, I don't agree with where those expectations seem to lie, but IMO the game is just more fun in general when everyone's on the same page. As has been mentioned, talking to the player about this issue can be a better solution - assuming, of course, that you where expecting the problem in the first place.

You can "retrain" players, but it's not something I see that often anymore. Trying to do so puts yourself at risk of falling into some pretty stick "bad game" cliches. From your example, I'm wondering if the player isn't off grumbling somewhere about how unfair you where. And really it doesn't matter what we here on ENWorld think about the situation - it's what your players think that matters. I'm not saying that you should have to put up with that sort of behavior, but if you reach a point where your expectations and the player's can't play well together then not jettisoning him from the group becomes unfair to him as well as to yourself.

 

[Barastrondo]

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

Now, admittedly we don't have enough information to be sure we have an accurate picture, but what's being described here is a player who listens not to the GM, not to any of his fellow players, but entirely to his own judgment of "the DM must do this because it's in the DMG". The guy was outvoted on whether to proceed further -- and he disregarded everyone else's advice, going on further.

If this is accurate, to my mind what is being described is a player who is ostracizing himself. If you don't want to listen to anybody else, if you want the only basis for your decisions to be an internal meter of what you think you should do, you're not playing a social game.

Actions like "don't listen to the rest of the group and go do your own thing" aren't necessarily objectively a wrong playstyle. However, the only metric about whether actions like that are right and wrong is the rest of the group's enjoyment. If throwing your drink on the Duke leads to everyone around the table cheering the chaos and going home happy, awesome. If it leads to everyone but you being angry and frustrated, I'm going to be judgmental and say yes, that playstyle is wrong, at least for the group you're in.

 

[shadzar]

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.

Why? The rogue player was a munchkin metagaming rules lawyer. He should not only have been ostracized form that game but ALL gaming. He wasn't going to be very welcome at future games because he was a disruptive player that caused the entire group of players and DM alike to sotp having fun because of him. The group took it upon themselves for the duration of having to put up with him that night to make it known to him that they were tired of his . They tied his characters ass up and gagged him for the remainder of the game.

That should of been his sign to stop pissing them off. He ignored all previous signs from the players, and did what he wanted as if everyone was there for his enjoyment.

That is EXACTLY the kind of person you ostracize and EXCISE from games.

When you have one player ruining the game for all, you get right of them!

If you are not the player in question, then maybe you should ask the OP for contact info, or give them yours to pas on to the rogue player, since you seem to want that player in your game. See if your million other ways beyond what it seemed the other players tried, would change the players behavior.

I don't mind interparty conflicts and let them resolve themselves, but when that conflicts one player reducing the fun for all, I would have stopped it much sooner as my job as a DM is to make sure the game works and is fun for ALL/MOST of the players and thrown the rogue out if this was his continuous behavior. That is basically what the players did when tying and gagging his character so he couldn't screw the game up anymore for them.

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh yes you do! You do not continue for hours while one person is disrupting the entire game so no one else can play it. You stop the game and remove the negative element. Just as done in schools, businesses, etc. You remove a disruptive element as soon as you can. If they are showing NO signs of concern for others, then they deserve none in return. Fire the employe, suspend a student, whatever to get them out of the way so the people wishing to work together for the same goal can do so.

Again it is the DMs job to remove disruptive players, not to coddle or babysit them. If the player needs a daycare center, then he should go there.

You think for an instant a bar wouldn't have someone singled out by having a disruptive person arrested in front of everyone else there?

The behavior of this person went WAY beyond the game, by completely ignoring everyone else in the game and doing what he wanted. He was rightfully shut down by the rest of the players, including the DM. They made it known to him that they were NOT putting up with any more of his crap.

 

[Dausuul]

I had the strong impression that the gagging was done by the rogue's fellow PCs who had had enough of his antics.

As far as the rest of it goes--meh. The DM is certainly under no obligation to conform to the player's absurd metagame thinking, and I don't see that this DM was singling anybody out. You do stupid stuff, bad things happen to you. Them's the breaks.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

My point is, this was set up by the GM purposefully. It doesn't matter who did the gagging and who nerfed the guys character because it was enabled by the gm. It's not appropriate, there are heaps of ways to deal with a player that doesn't involve group bullying.

With attitudes like this, it's little wonder the hobbie is shrinking.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Since we're now seeing some passionately argued dissent with the majority opinion that this was not, in fact, a dick move on the OP DM's part, let's see some constructive suggestions from the naysayers, shall we?

There is a lot of, 'yeah, you were being a dick, because of x, y, or z,' but I'm not seeing a lot of, 'maybe you should have done a, b, or c.'

I've seen a few suggestions to 'handle it ooc' or whatever, but that's a cop out. Be specific. How would you handle this situation, as a DM, in a way that everyone can be happy with, or at least not object to, that also doesn't bring the session to a screeching halt?

For the record, I think the OP did a brilliant job; he tried to handle the badly metagaming player without breaking the immersion the other players had invested in his story, not once, not twice, but three times. He tried to satisfy the majority of his players, who, based on the information we have, were being gracious team players, clearly not wanting to go along with the Rogue player's foolishness, but did so because that player was not taking 'no' for an answer. Furthermore, the DM has now foreshadowed an interesting future location for adventure. This was all accomplished (presumably) without bringing the session to a standstill. The last one's kudo-worthy on its own, and when you add in the rest - that's top-drawer DMing right there.

So, let's hear some solutions from the peanut gallery, shall we?

 

[Ryujin]

My point is, this was set up by the GM purposefully. It doesn't matter who did the gagging and who nerfed the guys character because it was enabled by the gm. It's not appropriate, there are heaps of ways to deal with a player that doesn't involve group bullying.

With attitudes like this, it's little wonder the hobbie is shrinking.

Role playing response to finding a "very dangerous dungeon", when already involved: "Let's put a pin in this and come back to it when we aren't on a critical mission, already."

 

[shadzar]

My point is, this was set up by the GM purposefully. It doesn't matter who did the gagging and who nerfed the guys character because it was enabled by the gm. It's not appropriate, there are heaps of ways to deal with a player that doesn't involve group bullying.

With attitudes like this, it's little wonder the hobbie is shrinking.

How was the character enabled by the DM? The design I can see, but the behavior, doesn't seem like it was allowed or enabled, and steps were taken along the way to show that this behavior was not approved of by the DM and the other players.

Likewise, how is it group bullying? The player wanted to play this playstyle, but the playstyle didn't fit the group, then he should have found a group that would allow it, and probably enjoy it.

Also how was this set up by the DM purposefully? There are a set of things going on and the players were warned about them. The majority of players headed the warnings and did not want to risk the consequences of ignoring those warning, while one insisted that everyone other player MUST ignore those warnings, and due to a single, obnoxious I might add, player the group had to deal with those consequences and take part in something they did not want to.

The player is the one that caused his own punishment for his behavior. He saw the sign labeled HOT and still touched it, but caused those around him to be in danger not only himself.

Would you have been happier if the players decided to have their character kill the rogue-classed PC before it could act, and the DM stood by and watched?

You are trying to place blame on everyone else, so that this player doesn't have to accept responsibility for his actions.

If the hobby is shrinking to get those kind of players out, and remove all sorts of disruptive players that refuse to work with the other players, but instead USE the other players for their own enjoyment, then all the better it is shrinking.

Were you ever a disruptive player that was thrown from a game because you constantly went against the rest of the group? Are you harboring some deep connecting to this situation because you feel you were ostracized because the other players did not let you use/abuse them for your own enjoyment?

You don't have to answer those questions, but I get the impression you are empathizing with the rogue player on some level due to similar experiences.

 

[Barastrondo]

My point is, this was set up by the GM purposefully. It doesn't matter who did the gagging and who nerfed the guys character because it was enabled by the gm. It's not appropriate, there are heaps of ways to deal with a player that doesn't involve group bullying.

Again, I wasn't there, but from the initial narrative, the first, most mature, and optimal way to deal with a player is to talk to him and say "no, let's not do that, that's a bad idea." When a player isn't interested in engaging in any sort of dialogue, in-character or out, there's only so much you can actively blame his fellow players for resorting to means other than dialogue.

With attitudes like this, it's little wonder the hobbie is shrinking.

By necessity, if you choose not to play with disruptive players, you will have a smaller pool of potential players. The question is, is the warmth of knowing that the hobby is larger worth having to play with someone who makes the game all about his character instead of working with everyone else at the table? There's no universal answer, but my personal answer would be "no."