Who's at fault?

[buzz]

I think you can get nearly everyone on ENWorld to agree that metagaming is bad.

Not me!

But that agreement comes, in large part, from the fact that there is absolutely no agreed-upon definition of what metagaming is.

Oh, okay.

This would be good fodder for another thread.

 

[fusangite]

This would be good fodder for another thread.

Well chime in there! I just posted it.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I think it's pretty clear that this is Teflon Billy's fault.

I see you have subscribed to my ex-wife's newsletter

 

[Mark CMG]

Who's at fault?

I have a rule of thumb that "If you have to ask, probably 'smelt it, dealt it.'" If the game is not being regulated to ensure that all of the PCs are on an equal footing, then it is up to the players to get while the getting is good and play their characters for all they are worth. If the thief wants to play a thief, knowing full well that it might leave the player of the paladin out in the cold, then turnabout is fair play. The paladin can get more face time by capturing the thief and turning him in to the local authorities, if thief he is indeed. A DM who doesn't regulate a game in a way that allows all of the players to participate most of the time is faced with choices of which part of a split party to follow. If that is the thief one session because he is actively pursuing a way to achieve a party goal, then so be it. If the next session the thief becomes uninteresting because he is in a cell and sentenced to ten years, then we follow the paladin for a decade. Seems all too simple . . .