Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 5459707" data-attributes="member: 98255">You acknowledge his bad behaviour, but you don't hold him responsible for it. His own actions. They're his to decide and nobody else.As for the 'trap,' for what it's worth, metagaming is not a popular playstyle, widely despised by DMs everywhere, with good reason. There is a lot of advice in books, on blogs, and in forums on how to avoid it, and teach players why it's not universally acceptable. This guy HAD to know that the rest of the group wasn't like that (they clearly weren't, both by description and inference), by that point in their adventuring careers.If this player wasn't happy unless he was metagaming, then he should have realised that maybe he ought to seek gaming enjoyment elsewhere, because there are groups that like that sort of thing. I'm not even calling it flat-out wrong.That's up to him though (provided the rest of the group was still tolerating him), and if he wanted something else, he should leave the group. End of story.He didn't though. Instead, he insisted on dragging every other player at the table into his metagame dungeon crawl, clearly against their better judgement. They were being tolerant though. In the interest of party cohesion, and in the interest of cooperation and teamwork. What did he do in return?He shoved their noses in it.And what are they supposed to do? Casually allow this unstable, metagaming wanker to ruin what may have taken them months to achieve in-game? He seems like the type to just slit everyone's throat in their sleep, out of spite. No, those characters, you tie up. That isn't ganging up, it's self-preservation. They tied up the character, not the player.I wouldn't have even tolerated this guy even that long, personally. We've kicked players out of my group for less in the past. "Here is the way we like to do things. Play along, or GTFO."I don't think that's unfair, and yeah, maybe this guy could have done it the way my group does, but he didn't. Maybe that's for the best (he could have taken it personally). Maybe he thought this player was still "redeemable" and if shown the error of his ways, would come 'round. I don't call that being a dick. I call that tolerance and patience.You are oversimplifying this argument into a false black-and-white scenario, and you are implying motivations to actions that you have no way of knowing for sure. You don't know what the atmosphere at the table was like, or the group's "spirit" for lack of a better term.</blockquote>

Verification