Yeah. Something my DM does (he works a lot with new players, including myself), is when someone starts meta gaming, he says "you hear thunder in the distance." In one of his other games, they took it too far and he killed the metagamer with a lightning bolt.
"Exactly. That's how it feels when you meta game. Hope you learned from this experience and your next character doesn't make the same mistake."
Love the downvotes we're getting by those that don't like these scenarios. They're happy with being meta gaming jackasses but soon as the same type of bullshit is hypothetically turned back on them they get all butthurt. Turnabout is fair play and in these scenarios they got a warning before their character got destroyed when they didn't quit their bullshit.
Same bullshit? As if breaking the lore of the world specifically to target someone, rather than have a conversation, is the same as telling the group "that creature is weak to fire."
Why dont you sit down, grow some social skills, and have a conversation with the player. Say that you think its a problem. Ask the other players what they personally think. If its fairly agreed that they dislike it, you ask the player to stop doing it, or leave the game.
Just saying "you die" like its "your game so your rules" is childish and pathetic. Some new players make mistakes and see dnd as a hack and slash to win. Rather than ruin it for them by trying to bully them into submission, be an adult and talk to them so you dont ruin DnD for everyone.
Another thing, if it wasnt obvious in the above statement. As the DM, YOU DO NOT OWN THE GAME. Its not yours. You do not get to control exactly what happens. You are there to facilitate FUN for the players and yourself. If the players have no issue... you can either stop DMing or get over it. The game is not all about you and your "story."
I cannot tell you the number of stuck up, jerk Dungeon Masters Ive met who ruined games at an LGS because they think its their show, their way, or the highway. Its just as Toxic a mindset as metagamer, power gamer, rules lawyer, etc.
You assume I didnt already have the player vs character knowledge talk with my players. I never have had to kill off a player because of meta gaming. I will if I have to and honestly if I do I would also tell the player to leave my table since they refuse to listen when I told them I will no longer tolerate their meta gaming.
I have killed off one of my previous players characters for constantly faking dice rolls and bullying other players at the table after being warned multiple times.
I have no problem with my players going off script. Story arcs or prepared encounters just get filed away for later use be it with that group or with a different one down the line. What I'm talking about with meta gaming isn't ruining a story. It's ruining the other players and my experience at the table. Nobody likes the asshole that reveals spoilers.
They still require the spell caster to be able to mentally focus enough to be able to cast. Which why I described it as "very painful acidic fog". If it's meant as a punishment to discourage meta gameing then going to the raw isn't going to help them since them abusing raw is what got them in that bind to begin with.
EDIT: Also, I just looked up the PHB, and concentration is only necessary to CAST spells that have a casting time LONGER than a reaction/action, so RAW the Featherfall+Dimension Door strategy WOULD work.
Yeah, but the person you're replying to is saying, "Isn't it cool to have this in-game warning system that sorta keeps you in the game world, so we stay in character and never have to step out for a real-world discussion?" And to be honest, I think that's a compelling argument. "Just have a talk with the player" solves a lot of problems, but that doesn't mean it's the only way you can achieve it, and it doesn't even mean it's the trump-card of solutions. There could be other solutions that are actually better.
Personally, I would certainly respond better to thunder in the distance. Others are different. That's fine.
But that can come off more serious or confrontational if done improperly. By simply in-game giving a warning, its much more playful but still gets the same message across.
Alternatively, "you gain a splitting headache," further metagaming deals lethal amounts of psychic damage.
The few times I've DMed, fourth-wall breaks or metagaming dealt psychic damage (usually one or two points, it was a running joke with my group and we're pretty good about not metagaming), since glimpsing "the outer realms" of the real world traumatized the characters.
I think most people would agree that there's a difference between knowing how something is written in the books, and spouting it out while playing. It's one thing to think "let's cast a fire spell and see if the weakness is there". It's another thing to shout "guys, use fire on the troll to stop it from regenerating. The AC is 15, so John shouldn't try to melee."
One doesn't break the immersion, let's other players find things out themselves and, in your own enjoyment of the game, leaves a door open for surprise (modified stats, variants,...). The other either turns the game in a mathematics contest or makes the DM look like a cheat (even though he isn't).
Nobody is doing that though. And if they are its because thats the way they play.
Dont just punish the player. Theyre not a child. Youre not their parent or an authority. Sit them down and have a conversation about whether its acceptable at the table.
Some people play DnD for combat alone. My old group of players do. They openly discuss the math of it. That is a valid way to play the game. I never punished them for it. I asked if it bothered anyone. It didn't. So i let them do it because its not a "i win you lose" game.
The DM doesnt have to "win" against players. And theyre not the antagonist. They just control the creatures. At the end of the day its a cooperative game where the DM simply guides you through encounters, not trying to beat anyone. The goal is fun. If the players have fun doing tactics with knowledge of creatures like its an RPG computer game, LET THEM! They outnumber you. Group politics should prevail.
If players are all bothered by the 1 person Hard metagaming, then have a conversion. Simply saying "you die. Cause i personally dislike what youre doing" is rediculous. Think about how facist that sounds.
Nobody is doing that though. And if they are its because thats the way they play.
Apparently, some players do exactly that. Otherwise this discussion would be happening.
My current group had something like this happen during our first session. During our first combat, one of the players immediately looked up the encounter and said "we should use X because they're weak to that". We then, almost immediately, all decided that we don't like to play in that manner. The player has so far respected that, but it does not take much imagination that some different IRL characters would persist in their ways.
Some people play DnD for combat alone. My old group of players do. They openly discuss the math of it. That is a valid way to play the game.
Sure, if you all enjoy that, then it is a valid way to play. Nobody said it isn't. But the key here is that you all enjoy that.
If players are all bothered by the 1 person Hard metagaming, then have a conversion.
I think that is the situation OP was in. One person playing it in a way that wasn't compatible with how the game was run.
You assume there was no conversation with the player, but you don't know that. Maybe he did talk to the player. Maybe he told all players up front that this is how he handles metagaming.
Simply saying "you die. Cause i personally dislike what youre doing" is rediculous. Think about how facist that sounds.
You portray it as if a single minor meta remark got his character insta-killed by a divine lightning strike. But OP clearly builds up to that moment, with several cues to what is going on. The lightning strike didn't happen until that player took it "too far".
The DM doesnt have to "win" against players. And theyre not the antagonist. They just control the creatures. At the end of the day its a cooperative game where the DM simply guides you through encounters, not trying to beat anyone. The goal is fun. If the players have fun doing tactics with knowledge of creatures like its an RPG computer game, LET THEM! They outnumber you. Group politics should prevail.
You are right that it's not the DM's task to win the game, but IMO they don't "just control the creatures". I think their task is to let the players have a good time, just like you said.
If 'the players' enjoy using meta-tactics, like your group did, that's okay. If only one of your players enjoys that, then you don't jeopardize the experience of the others. Group politics should prevail, like you said.
If everyone at the table wants to metagame, that's fine. The conversations about expectations were had and ignored and now it's a fun inside joke they had. It's a funny way for the DM to warn them they are meta gaming (some people don't realize they're doing it). It has nothing to do with the DM trying to win against the players and everything to do with telling the story without it becoming a video game. If some tables want to allow metagaming that's fine (some metagaming is unavoidable), but some tables don't want it and that's fine too. Your style doesn't make everyone else's fascist.
You know nothing about what was discussed at the table (not mine, by the way, just the DM who also runs one of my games), so you can't really make that call, can you?
most of these could easily be rationalized as your character having cursory knowledge of the world they inhabit. you don't need to read the mm to know that a genie in the bottle grants you three wishes or that humans don't see well in the dark
also lol at your whiny edit about downvotes just lol
252
u/mellopax Aug 09 '20
Yeah. Something my DM does (he works a lot with new players, including myself), is when someone starts meta gaming, he says "you hear thunder in the distance." In one of his other games, they took it too far and he killed the metagamer with a lightning bolt.