Was I being a dick to do this.

[Barastrondo]

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?

Being "nice" can be a definite problem if you don't prioritize. If your friend's talking on his cell phone at a movie theater, it might be considerate of his feelings to let him finish his conversation, but in the meantime he's making things less pleasant for everyone around him. Overall, it's a rather less considerate move overall. I'd rather sit behind someone who was willing to be the bad guy and ask his friend to shut up during the movie than someone who was worried it wouldn't be nice.

The Geek Social Fallacies don't claim that the exact opposite is true; they're just pointing out fallacious reasoning, such as the idea that anyone who ostracizes another is evil, full stop. Some ostracizers are absolutely jerks. But it is not innately evil to ask someone disruptive to leave a party even if you'd hang out with her in a different context. It's actually being considerate toward everyone else at the party.

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.

And I agree, within certain contexts. If it's a new player who's metagaming like anything, who's ignoring everyone else's advice because he's too excited about his next move, I'd cut him some slack. But if the guy has been playing for years and won't listen to his fellow players or the GM's hints? I become less worried about how the future of the hobby will be imperiled if things go poorly for his character.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

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

I think we pretty much all did. It was implied if not in the text, then certainly in the tone of his post.

 

[shadzar]

WOOHOO, I am people! Do my split personalities each get their own character to run?

The ball is then in his court.

I think the other players didn't give the DM a chance for that and put the ball in his court themselves. It seemed like a constant struggle for the players to work things out, and the DM let the inter-party conflict happen until he needed to step in and resolve it. But his resolution still let the other players decide how to handle the disruptive metagaming rogue character...they bound and gagged him.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

And I agree, within certain contexts. If it's a new player who's metagaming like anything, who's ignoring everyone else's advice because he's too excited about his next move, I'd cut him some slack. But if the guy has been playing for years and won't listen to his fellow players or the GM's hints? I become less worried about how the future of the hobby will be imperiled if things go poorly for his character.

Okay cool. So we can agree on that. What if the player is disadvantaged and numbers, levels, rules are relate-able but roleplay isn't? Is it still okay to treat the player in said way? If it's not, then why is it okay to treat others like this?

Look, fair is fair and I agree that the player's behaviour was bad but the way in which it was handled was just as bad, the way the table handled this situation is just plain wrong.

If the player is really that bad and you've made a number of attempts to reason and settle the issue through discourse then it's time to ask the player to leave your table, in hopes he can find another group that are on his level. You do not set up traps and then allow everybody at the table to treat the player or character in the way they did.

Can we agree on that at least?

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).

However, it's okay to assert the might is right rule? Because if everybody disagrees then the other person must be wrong?

 

[shadzar]

Look, fair is fair and I agree that the player's behaviour was bad but the way in which it was handled was just as bad, the way the table handled this situation is just plain wrong.

Not really. You may enjoy playing with total asses, but the players and DM all got fed up with the player and really didn't seem to want him there anymore. They let him be there.

That is where the problem really lies. They shouldn't have let him remain to "tease" him. They should have just said to him "Ok look, you are an ass, we don't enjoy having you in our games, there is the door."

How long would you tease the player when their attitude will not change?

Tell someone to leave and not come back and they will get over that "ostracizing" with not too much time, if they really cared about it.

Tag them along for a ride, and you could do more "damage" to them psychologically along the lines you are worried about.

Not all DMs like to play babysitter.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/301007-disruptive-players-how-long.html

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

That is where the problem really lies. They shouldn't have let him remain to "tease" him. They should have just said to him "Ok look, you are an ass, we don't enjoy having you in our games, there is the door."

If the player is really that bad and you've made a number of attempts to reason and settle the issue through discourse then it's time to ask the player to leave your table, in hopes he can find another group that are on his level. You do not set up traps and then allow everybody at the table to treat the player or character in the way they did.

Thank you, you just made my point for me.

 

[666Sinner666]

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.

Here is what I do not understand if you, the DM, set a "trap" and make it obvious to the players that its a "trap" where's the "trap"? Yeah, the DM kept throwing little pieces of candy at the rogue to try and entice him but in the same breath was making it clear he shouldn't eat them. Instead the player, the rogue, decided to ignore the warnings and go on ahead. Anything that happened after the rogue decided to ignore the DM is no ones fault but the rogues. You can call it a "trap" or a "test" or both but the decision to go forward was still the players NOT the DM's. The DM did what a DM is suppose to do and that is give the players options and adapt according to what they do, even if what they choose is not something the DM thought they would/should choose.

Regardless of what the DM does it is still up to the players to determine how they will react. If the DM does something and then tells the players how to react thats not playing an RPG thats having the DM read you a book while you listen and occasionaly roll some dice.

Moving forward to "tieing up and gagging the rogue for the rest of trip" its what any sane group of people would do when it becomes obvious there is someone who is trying to derail the entire group. Did they single him out? Yes, but at the same time the rogue put a giant target on his back and all but asked to be restrained for the sake of the rest of party.

(I'm going to go out on a limb and call this next bit "context" but I may be wrong.)

I've played the nut case rogue of a party before and at times would have my character do things that I, OOC, knew would endanger the party because I also knew, in character, its what my rogue would do. And when someone else in the party, namely the strength based warlord, would restrain my character? I let it pass and RP'd that my character was very sad he could not give into his whimsy/insanity and had him complain regularly that they would not let him. The player of the rogue in this case did not do it for RP reasons but for XP and loot, metagame reasons, which everyone, I think, can agree are not good reasons at all.

This is why most of the people that have replied to this thread agree with what the DM did and do not think it was a "dick" thing to do.

 

[billd91]

Okay cool. So we can agree on that. What if the player is disadvantaged and numbers, levels, rules are relate-able but roleplay isn't? Is it still okay to treat the player in said way? If it's not, then why is it okay to treat others like this?

Look, fair is fair and I agree that the player's behaviour was bad but the way in which it was handled was just as bad, the way the table handled this situation is just plain wrong.

I don't think it's wrong at all. You could single the player out and talk to him about his metagaming, sure. That's one method. But I don't see anything wrong with teaching him by example and practice, which is pretty much what you've got in the OP. In fact, I think that's preferable unless the player shows himself to be so dense that he needs a special talking to. From the OP, it looks like the player may indeed have been the later, but I give the DM (and the other players) full credit for trying it the immersive way.

 

[shadzar]

Thank you, you just made my point for me.

But the funny thing is you still state that that is ostracizing him and blaming the DM and players for singling him out in that manner.

They game him a chance to finish the game, that I would not have let him lst that long. I am not that nice or tolerant.

When you blamed the DM for singling ihm out, is where a lot of the argument with yo posts is coming from. The rogue character's player did that too himself.

We really don't know if they were stringing him along, at least not the DM; but the players were trying to work it out.

I would have just stepped in as the DM long before when the metagaming started, and NOT in a polite hand holding way but more like "The books don't run this game, if you expect something to happen as it would in the books then run your own, in mine I run the game, and if you want to continue playing in it, you won't mention the DMG says this again. This is your one and ONLY warning. Next instance the door is over there, you WILL be using it."

I don't teach new players using the books. If they come to me with questions about the books, I will send someone to WotC CS. I didn't write the books. I will teach the game, which is only LOOSELY found in the books of ANY edition.

If it is a knowledgeable player, they don't get as nice treatment.

ANY player referencing the DMG for ANY edition will also get the "one and only one warning" as the DMG doesn't run the game...i don't play with the metagamers or rules lawyers. Not enough time in my life to mess with that crap.

So taking into account a new player and removing that aspect...the player was not new, and just not a pleasant person. The DM wasn't to blame, just tried to make it work for all. The player was himself to blame for ALL the consequences he suffered in AND out of the game. That is the big part of the disagreement with your posts is coming from.

I hope you understand now, MANY people think there was other ways, but blaming the DM isn't right because the DM wasn't the cause of the problem.

 

[Dedekind]

One of the things I love about Eberron is that you can't assume anything about alignments. I guess the rogue didn't realize that...