Was I being a dick to do this.

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Just because the majority of people agree the GM wasn't a dick doesn't mean he wasn't, it just means there are a lot of dicks in our hobby, which isn't news I suppose.

Solutions, I would have suggested to the player that his level and treasure were elsewhere. Failing that, I would have put up a group vote and said "maybe next time" to the player. Failing that I would not have hinted suggestively at more adventure in the cave, I would have just had the orcs say that the cave was bare and that they were also riding out the storm. Better yet, I would have just made the cave a pit-stop with no adventure seeds (because there were none) or got on the plot and had no storm in the first place.

If a player is being a problem then it's the GM's job to supress that behaviour, not encourage it with a "test" and hints that cooler stuff is down below. I mean, a storm shelter turned dungeon is one of the oldest tricks in the book. If I was a player, I would have been naturally curious as well.

The player's behaviour was enabled by the GM because he set up the test in the first place. When the player said "we're due for treasure" the GM could have said "exactly and it lies to the *insert plot destination*" but instead he had his NPC's hint at a challenge in the dungeon.

Instead of dealing the player directly, the GM led the players into a test to see what the players would do. When a player didn't react the way he would have liked then he sought to punish them with a monster and then let the group (or himself) further punish a single player by having his character gagged and demonized.

That's being a dick. Apart of good GMing is knowing your players and knowing their weak points then building adventure that is going to cause the least bit of tension at the table. If a player metagames then it has to be dealt with but nobody should ever be singled out at the table.

When everybody at the table is nerfing your character, that is group bullying. When you were in high school and people singled you out and taunted you, how did that feel? Because it could have felt similar to that player and that is why it's a dick move and should not be encouraged in any social situation.

Anyway, if you guys think that it was cool and just then I'm nobody to tell you how to run a game at your table. If somebody asked me if they were a dick for doing so then I'm going to say yes. For the sake of my sanity (and probably yours) we'll all just agree to disagree.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Just because the majority of people agree the GM wasn't a dick doesn't mean he wasn't, it just means there are a lot of dicks in our hobby, which isn't news I suppose.

Oh there was a dick at that game table, but it wasn't the DM. It's players like the Rogue in question that give us all the image of antisocial, basement-dwelling trolls to outsiders of the hobby.

Solutions, I would have suggested to the player that his level and treasure were elsewhere. Failing that, I would have put up a group vote and said "maybe next time" to the player. Failing that I would not have hinted suggestively at more adventure in the cave, I would have just had the orcs say that the cave was bare and that they were also riding out the storm. Better yet, I would have just made the cave a pit-stop with no adventure seeds (because there were none) or got on the plot and had no storm in the first place.

I wasn't there, but from the original post and ones made on it elsewhere (it was crossposted with other details elsewhere), it's fairly clear what happened.

Solution 1 basically was implied and all the other party members tried to convince him of it. He wasn't listening.

Solution 2 was also basically tried. Nobody wanted to follow this guy, but did so out of a desire to not split the party. A vote would mean nothing to this guy. He's lucky his pals went with him at all, by the sound of it.

Solution 3 would be completely unconvincing to a player like this. Orcs, whom he already views as walking bags of XP telling him there is "nothing here but us orcs"? Come on.

Solution 4 breaks immersion so badly that it doesn't even count as a solution that I asked anyone to come up with.

Sorry, this guy is a selfish arsehat of a player. That kind of behaviour is not welcome at pretty much any table; it's childish and annoying. Maybe when you're 12. I'm assuming this group is older than that. His fun does not, and should not, trump the fun of everyone else in the group. This is kindergarten stuff.

If a player is being a problem then it's the GM's job to supress that behaviour, not encourage it with a "test" and hints that cooler stuff is down below. I mean, a storm shelter turned dungeon is one of the oldest tricks in the book. If I was a player, I would have been naturally curious as well.

Sorry, no, it's the job of a mature player to suppress bad behaviour, not the DM's. A DM is there to facilitate group fun and / or storytelling. He did so pretty well under the circumstances.

Having a player like this in your group is like heckling a comedian. There is usually one in every crowd, and the good ones can take it in stride and deal with it "in character," which, he did.

The player's behaviour was enabled by the GM because he set up the test in the first place. When the player said "we're due for treasure" the GM could have said "exactly and it lies to the *insert plot destination*" but instead he had his NPC's hint at a challenge in the dungeon.

That's what the other players tried to do. He didn't listen. Besides, that really breaks immersion when as a DM you have to say, "this way to Plothookistan."

Instead of dealing the player directly, the GM led the players into a test to see what the players would do. When a player didn't react the way he would have liked then he sought to punish them with a monster and then let the group (or himself) further punish a single player by having his character gagged and demonized.

I dunno, I thought the whole point of DMing was to test the players' abilities. In combat, social situations, and problem solving. This guy failed at all of them.

The monster wasn't punishment, it was a clue-by-four. I know subtle isn't something that everyone understands, so sometimes you need to be explicit. That's what this was.

That's being a dick. Apart of good GMing is knowing your players and knowing their weak points then building adventure that is going to cause the least bit of tension at the table. If a player metagames then it has to be dealt with but nobody should ever be singled out at the table.

Sorry, but this guy singled himself out, he didn't need or take any help from anyone else on that. At the end of the day, he just needs to take responsibility for his own actions. Another "lesson" this game should be good at teaching.

When everybody at the table is nerfing your character, that is group bullying. When you were in high school and people singled you out and taunted you, how did that feel? Because it could have felt similar to that player and that is why it's a dick move and should not be encouraged in any social situation.

Now you're just pulling things out of thin air. When did anyone in that story nerf the problem player's character? The part where they tied him up? Sounded like the rest of the trip was uneventful, and the other party members were roleplaying. If I were in a situation like that and I discovered that one of my allies proved to be untrustworthy, you'd better believe I'd do everything in my power to make sure he wasn't a threat to me. If that means tying him up, so be it. Better than killing the offending character.

Anyway, if you guys think that it was cool and just then I'm nobody to tell you how to run a game at your table. If somebody asked me if they were a dick for doing so then I'm going to say yes. For the sake of my sanity (and probably yours) we'll all just agree to disagree.

I don't know about 'cool,' but the DM did a good job making the best of a bad situation, if you ask me. That's the sign of a good DM. As for 'just,' well, I don't think this player was being very 'just' in his actions toward his fellow gamers, in character or out, so why should he be treated any differently. You said earlier, 'how would you feel,' and that's a question that this guy should have been asking himself, but clearly wasn't.

I can understand feeling bad for the 'underdog' but this guy doesn't deserve your sympathy. If he got treated badly by a 'dick' DM, then it's because he brought it upon himself. It's funny what happens with your behaviour when you take responsibility for your own actions.

 

[shadzar]

+1

Don't know how that experience points stuff goes, so there is my version to you for typing it out pretty much how I would have with few minor changes.

In case the OP returns I will ask if my assumptions are correct:

1- The DM gave fair warnings of things
2- Most of the players decided to heed these warnings
3- the rogue player liked to metagame
4- the rogue player liked, made habit of, to ignore the other players and do things himself
5- the other players tried to explain tot he rogue player that he didn't have power of proxy over the party to make their decisions for them.
6- the DM let everything happen as the game had been created, except for upping the monster level a bit
7- the players gagged the rogue player after escaping and the monster returning to his post to guard

OP, are my assumptions correct and did I miss anything important?

 

[LostSoul]

I don't think it was a dick move. I'd probably be more likely to act like the Rogue in your game - trying to get treasure through adventure (and murder)! - but I wouldn't have had a problem with that. It would have been fun - even the tying up part, assuming the other players were ribbing me and not whining about having been led on the adventure of their lives!

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?

When the player made his "metagame" comments, the DM could have told him that's not how the game works. This is called "getting on the same page." You do that to make sure everyone's playing the same game. When you don't do that, you get unwanted behaviour.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

.I wasn't there, but from the original post and ones made on it elsewhere (it was crossposted with other details elsewhere), it's fairly clear what happened.

Traditional Games Discussion at Something Awful called me a grognard for this but i thought it was hilarious and a great "trap" to see if they were paying attention. I also arranged for this to happen when they were a few xp away from leveling so it was a sort of test to see if they were roleplayers or metagamers.

Anyway, if you guys think that it was cool and just then I'm nobody to tell you how to run a game at your table. If somebody asked me if they were a dick for doing so then I'm going to say yes. For the sake of my sanity (and probably yours) we'll all just agree to disagree.

Fairly simple dude. The GM set it up, didn't get the desired reaction, table singled out a player (through roleplay or otherwise, it's still singling out). The GM, The Group and the player all made decisions that led to that monster yet the rogue was the only one to suffer negative effects. At my table it would never have even been and issue because I wouldn't have let it happen and if I did, my players are "mature" enough to resolve the conflict in a "mature" manner that doesn't end up with somebody else being ostracized from the group, through roleplay or otherwise.

 

[moxcamel]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this thread is why you don't go on the internet seeking validation.

 

[Barastrondo]

Fairly simple dude. The GM set it up, didn't get the desired reaction, table singled out a player (through roleplay or otherwise, it's still singling out).

I think unless you were there that's kind of a bit of projection. It can also (easily) be read as the player acting out on his own, singling himself out with his actions. The rest of the group says "hey, let's not attack those orcs"; the rogue says "attack." The rest of the group says "hey, let's not go down in the dungeon"; the rogue says "I go down in the dungeon."

The GM, The Group and the player all made decisions that led to that monster yet the rogue was the only one to suffer negative effects.

Untrue. Everyone got hurt in the fight. The "bound and gagged" thing is left unclear whether it's GM "singling out", but it really comes across as the rest of the party trying to prevent the rogue from getting them into any more unwanted fights, particularly because the rogue has proven he won't listen to them when they say "that's a bad idea."

At my table it would never have even been and issue because I wouldn't have let it happen and if I did, my players are "mature" enough to resolve the conflict in a "mature" manner that doesn't end up with somebody else being ostracized from the group, through roleplay or otherwise.

I honestly can't read all this talk of a problematic player being "ostracized" without thinking of Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil.

Now, I'm not saying that this scenario played out in optimal fashion. But of course, in optimal fashion a player who believes more in metagame reasons for things to happen would be open to being told "no, things will happen in accordance to in-world logic; you may meet orcs who are there because this is a place that orcs sometimes camp, not because I am providing a sack of experience points and loot for you."

Plus, and I think this is important -- the other players may not be interested in having everything spoiled in-character because of one player. Some players like to engage with the world in an in-character fashion. At my table, if I had to explain to a single player "Look, this dungeon is four to five levels above you," then everyone else at the table would be disappointed to some degree that they've been shown a look behind the curtain instead of seeing what their characters would see. And again we're left with the question of just why catering to one person should make the game less fun for everyone else at the table.

 

[Ryujin]

When a fellow player pulled a similar move that almost resulted in a TPK, I spent the entire next adventure making sure he knew that he was under my Warlock's Curse, should he consider making another such idiot move.

 

[Dausuul]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this thread is why you don't go on the internet seeking validation.

*shrug* He's got one guy arguing vociferously that he was being a dick, and everyone else in the thread approving, with levels of approval ranging from qualified to "Hell yeah!" And no fewer than 34 (!) XP grants on the initial post. I'd feel pretty validated if it was me.

 

[Camelot]

I'd like to hear if the conflict at the table of @rethgryn has settled down. Did the rogue's player accept that he deserved what he got? Or did he leave in a huff? Or is he some place in between, saying that it was unfair but continuing to play (perhaps in a more passive way)?

EDIT: I just remembered that you said the player left the group for unrelated reasons, but my question still stands. What was his reaction to this situation in the immediate games following?