Was I being a dick to do this.

[Dan'L]

My initial thought when reading the OP's story was that, no, it was fine; not dickish at all. But what kept niggling at me was this:

i thought it was hilarious and a great "trap" to see if they were paying attention.

The whole raison d'etre for this plot diversion was not as a story point, not as a tool to test or trap the *characters,* but as a way to test and trap the *players*??

You know what? It was a dickish thing to do. I obviously cannot speak for everyone playing, but when I play D&D, I don't do it to be "tested" to see if I'm paying attention; I don't need an "I tested you, and you failed" moment at the gaming table. I also don't care to be led into a "trap" to see if me or my fellow players meet certain standards for metagaming. Nor do I care to feel like the purpose of my being at the table is primarily to amuse the GM because he feels that testing the *players* is "hilarious."

Now, having said that, you did present it well. You did make it an extension of the setting, you did maintain the veil of immersion in the story, you did let the various players have their say and do there things, and I'm sure fun was had by many. But in the end, just because the target of your practical joke may laugh along with the rest of the group and wag a rueful finger at you with an "oh, you scallawag, you got me good this time" doesn't make it any less humiliating for the person who fell prey to the "trap," or that it was any less of a dick thing to do in the first place. Nor does it matter if the person had it coming.

In the end, you essentially did the psychological equivalent of building a door, setting a bucket of water above that door, telling everyone not to go through that door, and then laughing when one of them goes through the door anyway. The whole thing only existed not only because you created it, but created it for the express purpose of trapping a player.

Congratulations, it worked marvelously! Player Punk'd!

-Dan'L

 

[mneme]

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.

-1. Trolling.

Now, as far as I can tell, part of the problem is that most of the responses are focused on What the GM Did.

You're focused on What the Players Did (and blaming the GM for it). But the GM isn't responsible for the actions of the players--fundamentally, every player at a table is equal, including the GM--players just have different levels of commitment and different responsibilities.

Personally, I don't think the players actions were spotless--they should have let the theif go off on his own if he wanted to ignore the wishes of the group (yes, this would likely have resulted in him either relenting or getting his character killed when he faced a challenge designed to be a bit too much for the whole party; no big, nor a big loss), and similarly, tying him up and gagging him made no sense unless one assumes parties are joined at the hip. Instead they should have told him it was their way or the highway, and stuck with it (and I don't quite get gagging him unless he was also provoking random NPCs; gagging the player, sure, but at that point the game stops being D&D and had -better- be consensual).

The GM wasn't singling out the player (players were, but players do that; it's the GM's job to be fair, and the player's job to make judgments). The GM -was- giving players enough rope (collectively) to hang themselves, but that -is- the GM's job.

 

[shadzar]

to see if they were paying attention.

The whole raison d'etre for this plot diversion was not as a story point, not as a tool to test or trap the *characters,* but as a way to test and trap the *players*??

Where does the *AND* come from? The players weren't forced to engage it. That is the test, to see if they will or not.

The "trap" could have been anything for this test to see if they were paying attention. It could have been a mountain of gold pieces. Though it wouldn't be fair test since the rogue was looking for treasure via metagaming and was going under the impresion of his metagaming that treasure was owed.

This would not really have made a valid test, since the result was the same. the negative aspect of the trap, however, makes for a valid test to see if the rogue will continue to act in the manner of his metagaming or actually take note of clue and hints given.

The test seems clearly to be, "Are you listening to me, or only the book?"

As such is explained in the very NEXT sentence after what you quoted:

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.

The rogue failed the test in a sense, by passing that he WAS a metagamer.

You will NEVER get a straight answer from a metagamer that they are metagaming as they want to hide it and claim they are roleplaying without metagaming, or just don't know what metagaming is. A DM must find means to figure this out.

I say never, but an sure there are probably a few honest metagamers out there, but they are so far hidden in the masses of other metagamers that they easily get forgotten in the piles of those hiding they are metagaming.

I was accused of metagaming in White Plume once because I had played it before and now was playing Return or Revised....I played the entire thing though the exact say way save for one thing I couldn't previously do since I didn't have anything like feather fall the first time.

That was to descend into the ziggurat via jumping and being thrown out into the open area after being told what was/could be seen. Then reported what I saw back to the party, while feather falling since I had it this time, before they entered it.

Was that metagaming like the rogue and his "I'm going to open one, there is treasure, we're due for one more treasure parcel this level, its in the DMG."

when I play D&D, I don't do it to be "tested" to see if I'm paying attention; I don't need an "I tested you, and you failed" moment at the gaming table. I also don't care to be led into a "trap" to see if me or my fellow players meet certain standards for metagaming.

Since you are a superior DM to everyone else, then why not SHARE your "standards for metagaming" with the rest of the class? You know, to actually support your method with SOME information rather than just the equivalent of "I do it better". "Better" is subjective and not quantifiable. Give something people can quantify or qualify other than you are a "better DM".

 

[Dan'L]

Where does the *AND* come from? The players weren't forced to engage it. That is the test, to see if they will or not.

The "and" v. "or" is relatively moot. Read it as "and/or" if it makes you happier. The point was, and still is, that it was a test of the players' collective character and play-style, and that this is really a dick thing to do.

Whether or not the "test" was well-constructed or well-applied has little impact on whether or not even constructing or applying such a test in the first place was a "dick" move.

Please do realize, however, that I fully concede that in the reality of human society and interaction, sometimes a "dick" move is just what the doctor ordered, as in the previously cited example of a stand-up comedian shutting down a heckler. That doesn't make it any less a "dick" move, it just means that it was socially acceptable in that particular situation. In the end, it's his players who decide whether or not it is a socially acceptable application of dickery for their gaming group.

Since you are a superior DM to everyone else, then why not SHARE your "standards for metagaming" with the rest of the class? You know, to actually support your method with SOME information rather than just the equivalent of "I do it better". "Better" is subjective and not quantifiable. Give something people can quantify or qualify other than you are a "better DM".

I made and make no claim as to my relative capabilities as a DM. I have made no judgment here on anybody's "standards of metagaming." What I have done is address the OP's question, which regarded the dickery level of testing his players by setting a play-style trap for their characters and did *not* regard a question of what constitutes an acceptable standard of metagaming on the part of the player or players who consequently fell into his trap.

-Dan'L

 

[shadzar]

I made and make no claim as to my relative capabilities as a DM. I have made no judgment here on anybody's "standards of metagaming." What I have done is address the OP's question, which regarded the dickery level of testing his players by setting a play-style trap for their characters and did *not* regard a question of what constitutes an acceptable standard of metagaming on the part of the player or players who consequently fell into his trap.

-Dan'L

Rephrasing....

How would you have done it so that it wouldn't need to have had a "dick move" to find the metagaming players frpm the others?

It seems in all the discussion only one person has suggested alternate means, but that person seems to heavily think the whole scenario was ostracizing, and relates solely to that, so there has been little alternatives mentioned...what is one of your alternative methods for presenting that test?

There may have been other alternative presented and I missed them, or just forgot them by now.

 

[Dan'L]

Rephrasing....

How would you have done it so that it wouldn't need to have had a "dick move" to find the metagaming players frpm the others?

I'm fairly sure that I'd personally not consider it necessary to do anything in order to find the metagaming players from the other. Generally, if you have a metagaming player, you already know it without having to bait and set a trap. And as I initially stated, I don't believe that I would enjoy playing through a scenario designed as a litmus test for players' relative metagaming tendencies. Even if the GM and I have the same canon for what is and isn't metagaming, I would not see any need to set a trap for the purpose of sorting out the other players.

Inherent in this, too, is that the OP gives us no information as to why he considered this "trap" a necessary thing in the first place. If I am to take it as a given that there is some reason why sorting out the players would be necessary, I would need to know the particulars of the situation before deciding how to proceed forward; this information is not given in this case.

Bottom line: It's a dick move to set a trap for players to sort out their play-styles. This bears no judgment on whether or not such an action is situationally justified. I am not addressing the justifiability of the action, as there is (A) simply not enough information given to do so and (B) this isn't the question that the OP asked.

...what is one of your alternative methods for presenting that test?

In the absence of further specific details from the OP, I will simply reiterate that I would likely not have presented the test in the first place. I would much rather spend my time and energies on crafting a fun and engaging adventure than devising ways to trap my players based on their play-style foibles or faux pas.

-Dan'L

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

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

I'm not going to bother replying to all the other stuff because I've already had my say and so have you. Continuing isn't convincing anybody and we're just repeating ourselves.

However, this is crap. It could be true, I don't know, I come from a entirely different generation to most people on this board and so this "fallacy" doesn't make sense. Social humiliation is now acceptable and being nice is now a problem?

I can guarantee however that people pulling these stunts at the table will hinder new blood. If you noticed, I acknowledged the player's behaviour as bad but considering how the GM dealt with it (aka setting a trap) that's being a dick and that behaviour will drive away people just as much, if not more so than a socially awkward or inept person.

-1. Trolling.

Oh come on. People have been insinuating the only reason I take this position was because I have an emotional attachment to being socially ostracized and I'm the troll?

 

[shadzar]

I come from a entirely different generation to most people on this board

Really? I have known no generation that would tolerate such a disruptive player.

In all honestly generations older than myself, would have asked him to step outside and had some "words" with him, which would have still been singling the player out, or likewise just told him to leave.

Either case the player is being singled out, but due to his own actions, not because someone is trying to place the focus on him. He already did that to himself in ways the game and society does not accept.

 

[mneme]

Oh come on. People have been insinuating the only reason I take this position was because I have an emotional attachment to being socially ostracized and I'm the troll?

You ignored the context here. I was responding to your saying that everyone on the other side of you on this argument was a dick. That's trolling (and bad form, to boot).

Re geek social fallacy #1--yes, tolerance has occasionally been taken (far) too far in geek social circles; tolerating, rather than ostracising (or otherwise either training or removing from the community) people with enough terrible hygine to be a problem, who sexually harass (or worse) members of the opposite sex -- or otherwise behave in an inappropriate manner that, among other things, drives nice people with standards away from the group.

Or, in a game, people who take over the game and refuse to let anyone else play, or just can't adapt themselves to something compatible to what the rest of the group wants to play. Maybe they're a fine friend--maybe even a fine gamer, but if they can't play the game the rest of the group wants to and can play (and worse their presence prevents that game from being played), they don't belong in the game.

 

[GameDoc]

FWIW, I complimented th OP and still don't think what he did was really egregious. But after seeing some of the counterpoints, yeah, he could have handled it differently.

Honestly, when he first made a metagame statement like "It's in the DMG," or "Because the DM would/wouldn't do X," I would have broken the narrative for a brief few seconds just long enough to politely say "remember your rogue doesn't know he's a character in a role-playing game and wouldn't make decision based on what's in the DMG." or "Trying to anticipate the DM's plan is metagaming, please don't." and then moved right back to where we left off.

The ball is then in his court. If he continues openly metagaming in the face of a reasonable request to stop, it's his bad manners (i.e., he's now the dick). Persisting then becomes blatant disrespect to the DM and other players who are roleplaying their characters as appropriate. If he forces the DM to keep breaking the narrative, it's clearly him doing it.

Some of this is assuming the player understands the problem of metagaming and just keeps on doing it to get a rise out of everyone. If he doesn't understand he might need a little coaching. Otherwise if it's just to be a pest, something a little firmer is warranted.

Some players might feel better if you talk to them after the game, one on one, and not be singled out publically. But some might actually take that as more of an insult or be more embarassed by it and would have preferred you give them an in-game wake up call like the one the OP describes (although maybe not as extensive or elaborate). You kind of have to know the player and let that be your guide as to which.

I gave the OP the benefit of assuming this was a culmination of dealing with a larger pattern of this player being a problem. Maybe I drew the wron inference