# How to punish a metagamer?



## Alishea (Jul 22, 2011)

So we have a bit of an issue. We have been able to finally find players that we like except for one. He is a major metagamer. For example, we had some party discord about loot essentially the fighter (metagamer) wanted to hold on to a magical item that was meant for a caster. The oracle (me) wanted the item. He refused to hand it over and the wizard cast a charm spell on him. Well, as soon as the fighter heard that the wizard had charmed him he waited until we had rested for the night and said that he was going to coup de grace the wizard during his watch. 

This caused the rest of the group to get angry saying that he had no reason to hate or kill the wizard that a level 2 fighter would have no idea what the wizard did when he did his magic. In order for the group to continue on the DM allowed the wizard to go back and change his action after the spell. 

Well the rest of the group went a long with it in an effort to keep the session going. But now that we have had time to talk we aren't a fan of this. The DM has stated that he would be willing to not allow PK but we think that if the roleplay context would make PK make sense then it should be allowed. We are now at a loss as to what to do. The DM has stated that he will never say to the fighter that his character doesn't do something (essentially he will never take control of the character). But this leaves the rest of us open to his metagaming and having to play based on the fear that he will kill our characters. The fighter doesn't care if his dude dies, since he does no roleplay, but the rest of us have a fondness for our characters and would be quite unhappy if they died under such circumstances. 

Any suggestions? 

We are thinking about clamming up and not saying anything and just passing notes the entire time. 

*oh and kicking the metagamer out is not an option due to diplomacy issues that this would cause*


----------



## OberonViking (Jul 22, 2011)

Let the metagamer know how you feel via email. It is easier on you, and ultimately he has to be told.

We had a player whose character collected body parts - from our enemies, from graves, from other people's battles, wherever he could. The rest of us were really uncomfortable with it, but just kept quiet.
Eventually someone sent him an email. He apologised, saying he didn't realise any one would feel that way, and he is now an integral part of the team.


----------



## Alishea (Jul 22, 2011)

OberonViking said:


> Let the metagamer know how you feel via email. It is easier on you, and ultimately he has to be told.




We have strait up told him and he just doesn't believe that a fighter would have no idea about a spell. He thinks that he would "feel" the charm and know what the wizard did, even though that would seem to ruin the entire charm spell and what it is used for.


----------



## OberonViking (Jul 22, 2011)

Alishea said:


> We have strait up told him and he just doesn't believe that a fighter would have no idea about a spell. He thinks that he would "feel" the charm and know what the wizard did, even though that would seem to ruin the entire charm spell and what it is used for.




I tend to agree with him there. If I remember right, 3.5 under the Handle Animal skill said that you could use spells to help with training an animal, but more intelligent animals tend to resent that. PF doesn't say anything about using spells under Handle Animal.

*But that is not the point*, and your metagamer needs to know that.
Gaming with people involves an unwritten, unspoken social contract about *having fun together. *
He has broken that contract. Metagamers often call this selfish act "staying in character."
That is what you need to tell him. Its not all about him. Its not all about his player. It is about everyone having fun.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Jul 22, 2011)

As OberonViking said, it's about everyone having fun. Coup de grace on a fellow party member as they sleep is not fun for everyone.

If he's doing things that extreme I'd ramp up my punishments to make it very clear that I'm not going to allow it. Personally I'd change his alighnment to either Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil as soon as he starts to go through with the plan to kill a teammate (especially because it's petty revenge against actions they only had to take in the first place because he was being stupidly selfish). Then as soon as he raises his sword to kill the wizard the camp gets attacked by something-anything-that is far too strong for them to deal with and will have a justifiable reason for only killing him. Perhaps a (much higher level than the party) paladin was in the woods that night and stumbled upon their camp. He detected evil before approaching the camp to make sure it was safe and learned that the fighter was evil but none of the others were. Upon seeing him preparing to kill a sleeping innocent the paladin rushes in to save the other party members and smites the fighter to death.

And now he can enjoy rolling up his new character.

The paladin is just one example. It could be any sort of monster, NPC, trap, magic, etc as long as it can be justified.



Alishea said:


> We have strait up told him and he just doesn't believe that a fighter would have no idea about a spell. He thinks that he would "feel" the charm and know what the wizard did, even though that would seem to ruin the entire charm spell and what it is used for.




To this I'd like to point out that as the GM it's YOUR game. Enforce that you make the rules, and that metagaming goes against them, and that by coup de grace-ing the wizard in "revenge" he was using knowledge his character couldn't have and therefore metagaming, as in: "I don't care if you THINK you should be able to tell if you were charmed Mr. Fighter, because in fact you aren't the GM, you don't get to decide how the details of a spell cast upon you work, and in fact you could NOT tell".


----------



## Is_907 (Jul 22, 2011)

SnowleopardVK said:


> As OberonViking said, it's about everyone having fun. Coup de grace on a fellow party member as they sleep is not fun for everyone.
> 
> If he's doing things that extreme I'd ramp up my punishments to make it very clear that I'm not going to allow it. Personally I'd change his alighnment to either Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil as soon as he starts to go through with the plan to kill a teammate (especially because it's petty revenge against actions they only had to take in the first place because he was being stupidly selfish).




Also, if his alignment changes, he can't take divine healing 
(Yeah, I'm assuming your healer is of an opposing alignment... they typically are, after all...)
Even if he (somehow) keeps this character alive, he'll be on his own for healing.


----------



## Alishea (Jul 22, 2011)

SnowleopardVK said:


> As OberonViking said, it's about everyone having fun. Coup de grace on a fellow party member as they sleep is not fun for everyone.




Thank you so much for this! I have forwarded it to our DM and he will be taking it into account. We are lucky that the fighter won't be here tomorrow for the game and it will give us all time to talk about how we want to deal with him. Plus it will be nice to have a game where we don't worry about getting killed by him


----------



## Alishea (Jul 22, 2011)

Is_907 said:


> Also, if his alignment changes, he can't take divine healing
> (Yeah, I'm assuming your healer is of an opposing alignment... they typically are, after all...)
> Even if he (somehow) keeps this character alive, he'll be on his own for healing.




Since I play the Oracle, I told him when he wanted to coup de grace someone that I wouldn't heal him. He didn't seem to care (I guess because he really doesn't care if his dude dies). He even went so far as to run off by himself into a portal when the oracle and the wizard had NO spells left. He just got bored and decided to run off. 

But the DM has been talked to about that as well, and we are ready for him to be much more heavy handed with the "punishment" of stupidity. We have a new guy in the group and this fighter thinks that he can tell the new guy what to do every single time. He truly is a pain in the ass gamer. But 40% of the time he is ok.


----------



## Dykstrav (Jul 22, 2011)

Well... If you want to get in his face about his meta-gaming, I'd suggest that you point him to the Spellcraft skill. It specifically says in the description of the skill that one of its major functions is to identify spells as they are being cast. Furthermore, it's trained only. No ranks in Spellcraft, no possibility of him identifying the spell.

You really should directly discuss with the GM and the player about the importance of being a good sport. That includes not only making the game fun for everyone, but also being graceful when things don't go their way. If you don't get this straightened out, he's going to get worse over time, not better--try to imagine what would happen if his character dies, suffers a negative level, ability damage, or whatever.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jul 22, 2011)

Despite this:


Alishea said:


> *oh and kicking the metagamer out is not an option due to diplomacy issues that this would cause*



, I think booting him is the best option.  He doesn't seem to care much about the game, his character, or the other players.  So why on earth is he even there?

In any event, good luck with this. It sounds terribly frustrating to be so close to a great group, yet so far away.


----------



## OberonViking (Jul 22, 2011)

Alishea said:


> But 40% of the time he is ok.



"There is good in him. I have felt it."

So he is redeemable, that's good. 

I feel that this needs an out of game solution, as it seems he doesn't care about in-game consequences.
Perhaps he is bored or unhappy with his character - offer to let him change it.
Primarily, though, he needs to know that what he is doing isn't fun for anyone else. It is bullying.

We've talked about the group having a D!ckhead Clause. Anyone is welcome, but if they turn out to be a candidate for the clause, week after week, even after we talk to him/her about it (when I will tell them about the clause), then they are asked to leave.


----------



## Shisumo (Jul 22, 2011)

Dropping a coup de grace on a sleeping party member is seriously not fun and definitely uncool.

I would, however, suggest that resorting to magical mind control in order to resolve a loot dispute isn't exactly being a paragon of love, kindness and rainbows. Clearly the player was annoyed by how the caster treated his PC, and I think he might have had a point. The GM doesn't want to "play his character," but dropping a _charm person_ on someone who is supposed to be on your side is basically doing the same thing.


----------



## Alishea (Jul 22, 2011)

Shisumo said:


> Dropping a coup de grace on a sleeping party member is seriously not fun and definitely uncool.
> 
> I would, however, suggest that resorting to magical mind control in order to resolve a loot dispute isn't exactly being a paragon of love, kindness and rainbows. Clearly the player was annoyed by how the caster treated his PC, and I think he might have had a point. The GM doesn't want to "play his character," but dropping a _charm person_ on someone who is supposed to be on your side is basically doing the same thing.




I kind of see your point but I think the intention of the charm spell is what matters. The wizard attempted to charm someone in order to do what is best for the group. The fighter was looking out for himself and saying he was playing CN. If he were willing to play a CE then it would be different and we would just kill him (at least my oracle would). I see the charm as not 100% peace and love, but I think that it was kind of forced. The wizard would never had done it if he were playing as if he were in a group. 

And I think that a charm spell among friends is acceptable. In 3.5 I played a courtesan that used her abilities to make a fighter carry her through the mud so she didn't have to walk. I don't think it was a bad move for the party, it didn't hurt anyone and it stayed true to both characters.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 22, 2011)

Alishea said:


> The fighter was looking out for himself and saying *he was playing CN*.



Oh. He's one of those.

I'm sorry.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 22, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> Oh. He's one of those.
> 
> I'm sorry.




My sentiments exactly.  People who think CN means they can be selfish pricks and do whatever they want and "be in character" are a scourge of the game and must be purged.  Really, I prefer characters that are outright CE and don't try to hide/condone the fact that their character's vile.


----------



## concerro (Jul 22, 2011)

Alishea said:


> So we have a bit of an issue. We have been able to finally find players that we like except for one. He is a major metagamer. For example, we had some party discord about loot essentially the fighter (metagamer) wanted to hold on to a magical item that was meant for a caster. The oracle (me) wanted the item. He refused to hand it over and the wizard cast a charm spell on him. Well, as soon as the fighter heard that the wizard had charmed him he waited until we had rested for the night and said that he was going to coup de grace the wizard during his watch.



What does the item do, and why does he want to hold on to it. 



> This caused the rest of the group to get angry saying that he had no reason to hate or kill the wizard that a level 2 fighter would have no idea what the wizard did when he did his magic. In order for the group to continue on the DM allowed the wizard to go back and change his action after the spell.



Charm person does not give someone amnesia. He would be well aware of what happened. 



> Well the rest of the group went a long with it in an effort to keep the session going. But now that we have had time to talk we aren't a fan of this. The DM has stated that he would be willing to not allow PK but we think that if the roleplay context would make PK make sense then it should be allowed. We are now at a loss as to what to do. The DM has stated that he will never say to the fighter that his character doesn't do something (essentially he will never take control of the character). But this leaves the rest of us open to his metagaming and having to play based on the fear that he will kill our characters. The fighter doesn't care if his dude dies, since he does no roleplay, but the rest of us have a fondness for our characters and would be quite unhappy if they died under such circumstances.



Punishing never really works. If the guy is being a jerk I would call him on it, and try to reason with him. If he continues to be a jerk he should be booted. 


> Any suggestions?
> 
> We are thinking about clamming up and not saying anything and just passing notes the entire time.
> 
> *oh and kicking the metagamer out is not an option due to diplomacy issues that this would cause*



Darn. I need more info if you can't kick  him out the exact situation.


----------



## tylermalan (Jul 22, 2011)

In-game "punishment" is silly.

This is a social issue that is, by-and-large, totally separate from the game that you're playing.  It should be dealt with as such - by this I mean: would you go to the movies with someone that annoys you?  Maybe once, before you know how annoying they are, but would you keep doing it?

If the person is doing something that you don't like, you talk to them about it, like real people.  If the person continues to do it, you stop wasting your time trying to have fun with someone who obviously doesn't care.  It's very simple - don't make this about the game; this is about personality conflicts between two real people (or between one person and many others).


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 22, 2011)

Alishea said:


> The fighter was looking out for himself and saying he was playing CN.




Ahhh the siren call of  players everywhere!  He will never get better than he is right now and will most likely get worse and worse.



> If he were willing to play a CE then it would be different and we would just kill him




hint: he is already playing CE - ignore the scribbles he has placed upon his character sheet.  Killing defenseless sentients is evil and chaotic!  Problem solved!  Off his fighter and watch him bring in another one just like the first - and now he'll be out for revenge!  

At which point you kick him out.


----------



## Dannager (Jul 22, 2011)

Holy Bovine said:


> hint: he is already playing CE - ignore the scribbles he has placed upon his character sheet.  Killing defenseless sentients is evil and chaotic!




Except when it's not, right?

Capital punishment is the killing of defenseless sentients, and it is by definition lawful, and is arguably a moral good. The fighter obviously feels betrayed by his party (or at least the caster) to some degree and feels that retribution is in order. I would argue that, in point of fact, *mind-controlling someone in order to take their things* (not to mention apparently lying to them about it after the fact) is the only objectively evil action in this story.

Yes, the fighter's player is being a dick. So was the caster. And, more importantly, Alishea's group quite clearly needs to implement a no-party-conflict rule; it clearly cannot handle such tension maturely (which isn't to rag on the group, really, since very few groups are capable of handling party conflict maturely).


----------



## GameOgre (Jul 22, 2011)

First off let me say that finding people with the same play style as you is heaven! Most of the time though we all have to realize that the game needs to be a mix and match of what everyone wants.

 Loot issues are ALWAYS a pain. 

Unless you have a solid agreement how things are handled you have no right to claim anything more than he does. work together to find a agreement. This doesn't mean you all gang up on him and attack him though! Thats just what your characters did!

Look at it from his point of view.

What if there was something he wanted and so did you. So he put a sword to your characters throat(his class tool just like spells are the mages) and made you give it up. not only that but the entire party went along with it!

 Then when you felt like getting revenge(always a bad idea) the DM stopped the game and let the party retroactivly make changes so that your revenge did not work out!!

See? If you take a steep back and look at it he has all the reason in the world to act like a arse! He will not be at the next game probably for a reason! 

My advice is for you guys to apologize for the whole mess and try to laugh it off. Also to realize that your Metagamer is not the devil just because of his play style. I have a metagammer in my group and we all manage to get along fine! now thats not saying he might not be a arse! Just that it isnt BECAUSE of his play style.

I also agree that it does not sound like this group of people can handle character conflicts well and needs clear rules on how to deal with stuff like this. Few groups can and its all about the fun.

 If it aint fun don't do it! but thats a two way street! If it isn't fun for his character you shouldn't do it either!

Also a no Evil or CN Alignments rule is needed.Frankly the player freedom to make a character with those alignments isn't worth the pain of the conflicts they cause.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 22, 2011)

Ugh! The "I'm just playing my alignment" excuse....

Talks of punishment is just going to lead things on a downward spiral in my opinion. The best option is to talk it over as a group as players, not characters. People are gathered together to have some fun - sure some inner party turmoil can be fun, but if it is impacting the fun the group is having too much then it needs toned down or corrected.  

I don't think there is an easy way out of this and the group just needs to sit down and discuss this issues up front and clear the air. If the group can't come to an understanding then possibly the player styles aren't going to match and someone will need to step away from the game.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 22, 2011)

How does your group handle loot distribution, btw?  I VASTLY prefer a fair system whereby, as DM, I take all the loot items, list them out with their sell-back price (usually 50% market price, though commodities and art remains 100% per the rules, etc...) and show total gold piece value for what they found with the actual gems and coin added to the value of the gear.  And then split that up evenly between each person to give them their share of the loot.  From there, people can try to claim items by paying for them.  Pretty simple.  A Gloves of Dex +2 item sells for 2000 gp, half what it'd cost to outright buy the item normally.  So someone who could use such an item would probably want to snatch it up at the "bargain price" while as someone who has no use for it (dwarf fighter in full plate that already has +1 dex, perhaps?) wouldn't likely want to waste a bunch of money on an item that's not very useful for him.

Of course disputes still come up, at which point the party can try to mediate.  Either whoever needs the item more or could better use it gets it; coin toss to see who gets it if both agree to that form of resolution; the one who gets it pays 25% of its value to the other PC so s/he can go off and buy the item from a store and both end up paying 75% the market price for the item effectively (Gloves of Dex example, Rogue grabs it for 2000 and gives the Ranger 1000, who then goes to buy one from a store for 4000, both end up paying 3000 effectively); in some cases with scaling bonus items like a ring of protection, the person who grabs the new item might donate his old to the other wanting PC (say PC 1 has RoP +1 and PC 2 has no RoP; treasure includes a RoP +2; so they agree that PC 1 gets it and gives his old ring to PC 2).

Lots of fair and calm ways to resolve things.

The key is distributing the gear/wealth fairly, though.  If you use a system where people just call dibs on stuff they want and then loot shares are only calculated from what remains after that, there's no downside to claiming tons of crap.  It needs to have a cost attached to discourage that sort of behavior and keep things fair.


----------



## Systole (Jul 22, 2011)

You might not be able to kick him for diplomatic reasons, but there's no reason the rest of you have to keep playing a game that you don't like.


----------



## Burn_Boy (Jul 22, 2011)

After reading through everything I have to say that kicking this guy out might be the best solution if he won't change his ways. If that's really not an option you could try making him DM for a little. Of course there's always the problem that he could wind up like the bad player we tried that with, he just always tried to kill us once we hit level 5.

The only other thing I could consider is making it painfully obvious that certain magic items are meant for certain people or create some Items of Legacy that, if used by the wrong person, or stolen by the wrong person, it acts cursed, but yeah, I think booting him from the group might be the only thing you can do.


----------



## Alishea (Jul 22, 2011)

I've never had loot distribution issues before in all of the 13 years that I've played this game. We had always done what is best for the party. So the Dex gloves would go to the rouge or ranger (depending on what we had and how they wanted it to go) etc. We had previously been doing the same thing before this loot issue came about. 

There was also a trap issue. There was a well in the middle of the room and the rouge decided he would look into it (which is fairly normal for a person to do) and when he did he saw something he wanted *had to make a will save which failed and was in essence "pulled" into the well where he started to take damage*. What our char saw was the rouge fall into the well trying to grab something. The fighter was the guy right next to him, so it seems obvious that he would rush over and try to help him out of the well. Or at least look. Well he decided that he was never going to look into the well and was going to try to help him with his eyes closed. 

When we told him that doesn't make sense at all, he argued and refused to change it. Well the rest of the group went on as we normally would. We rushed over to help him out. I had detected magic on the well before the rouge looked in it and strait up asked the DM if it were reasonable for me to assume it was a trap or trick well based on the illusion and evocation he said the well had on it. I told him that if I didn't have reason to assume it caused the rouge to fall, that my next course of action would be to run over to the well and look into it. (I had to ask because this was the first spell caster I had played and I wasn't sure what detect magic would tell me). The wizard did the same. 

After this is when we had the loot issue. We had told him outright that he was using player knowledge and he wouldn't budge. It would be better to not play with him but we need him to leave because he is affiliated with one of the largest groups in San Antonio and would essentially have us black balled. 

It's taken over a year and a half to find enough people for a group, I don't want to be black balled and not be able to play at all. We need for him to leave on his own. 

And for the record, I think if my oracle decided to take the str +22 gloves and keep them for herself then I wouldn't blame the fighter if he put the sword to her throat and took them. That's obviously not meant for her. 

And this magic item was the flute of the sewers, it made rats come and you had to make a check for (is it use magic device?) and a perform (CHA based obviously and my oracle has a 20 CHA).


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Jul 22, 2011)

Alishea said:


> After this is when we had the loot issue. We had told him outright that he was using player knowledge and he wouldn't budge. It would be better to not play with him but we need him to leave because he is affiliated with one of the largest groups in San Antonio and would essentially have us black balled.




Hrm, I can see why you'd be worried about that, but consider this. Kick him anyways, and if anybody tries to exclude you guys for it, explain the situation, that he was metagaming and refused to change even when the DM told him to stop.

The group, assuming they're reasonable enough, will understand why you did what you did. Large groups have generally had plenty of experience with bad players. If they don't then they may be enough like him that you might prefer not to play with them anyways. Maybe you can find a replacement among friends, someone completely new who you could introduce the game to.

If you're still concerned my suggestion is find a new player first and then stop playing with this guy. Again, use this opportunity to introduce a friend who's never played to the game. You don't even have to kick the other guy out officially if that's what worries you, just give him the old "sorry we don't have room for you any more, the group would be too big" as an excuse after introducing a new person.

I'm not normally a fan of workaround solutions like that and I'd prefer to discuss it with him directly, and then give him the boot directly if he didn't comply, but if you're afraid of a direct confrontation caused by kicking someone out then the above might work decently.


----------



## Systole (Jul 22, 2011)

Alishea said:


> It would be better to not play with him but we need him to leave because he is affiliated with one of the largest groups in San Antonio and would essentially have us black balled.
> 
> It's taken over a year and a half to find enough people for a group, I don't want to be black balled and not be able to play at all. We need for him to leave on his own.




F@*^ him, then.  Seriously.  I thought he was a roommate or a cousin or something that you couldn't escape.  He's not worth playing with, and if he can actually blackball you from that group, they're not worth playing with either.  Chances are, there's a lot of people in that group that think he's a complete tool, and they'll be MORE willing to play with you if you kick him out.

All that aside, if it took you a year and a half to find a group, you're not looking in the right places.  nearbygamers.com and meetup.com are good places to look, as well as checking Paizo's PFS for upcoming games where you can test drive new players and invite a couple of decent ones.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 22, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Except when it's not, right?
> 
> Capital punishment is the killing of defenseless sentients, and it is by definition lawful, and is arguably a moral good.




There are many who consider capital punishment evil and chaotic.  Heck I could probably find people who feel genocide is a 'moral good' too!  Really it would just go around and around and around.  We're talking about game mechanics - not real life.  Mixing them is a way to madness!


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 22, 2011)

Alishea said:


> It would be better to not play with him but we need him to leave because he is affiliated with one of the largest groups in San Antonio and would essentially have us black balled.
> 
> It's taken over a year and a half to find enough people for a group, I don't want to be black balled and not be able to play at all. We need for him to leave on his own.




If you have a group why would you care about being "black-balled"?  Is that a legitimate concern?  Is this "largest group in San Antonio" part of the mafia or something?  I am having a really hard time imagining how this could affect your game at the table.  Would you lose your playing space maybe?


----------



## Dannager (Jul 22, 2011)

Holy Bovine said:


> There are many who consider capital punishment evil and chaotic.




And I acknowledged that capital punishment is _arguably_ a moral good. As for it being non-lawful, I don't think there's any way you can make that argument. It is an act carried out by a duly appointed government in line with its democratically established legal structure and only occurs after multiple lengthy reviews.



> Heck I could probably find people who feel genocide is a 'moral good' too!



And those people would be wrong.



> Really it would just go around and around and around.  We're talking about game mechanics - not real life.  Mixing them is a way to madness!



If you don't believe that the alignment game mechanic is based on real-world moral strictures and understandings, you're woefully in the dark. If you _do_ believe this, then you should probably acknowledge that an act of retribution for an evil act is probably defensible as something other than chaotic evil.

And, importantly, there seems to be very little going on in this thread to condemn the _actually evil act_ of taking something from someone via mind control. The fighter's player arguably started the conflict by refusing to give up a magic item (though we have no context on what the item actually was, or what the party's agreed-upon loot division rules were, so this is impossible for us to judge), but the spellcaster's player _inarguably_ escalated that conflict to a level it should never have reached.

To put it simply: if you're defending the guy who took advantage of someone via mind control, you don't have a lot of moral ground to stand upon when condemning the guy who tried to get back at him.


----------



## GameOgre (Jul 22, 2011)

Dannager said:


> And I acknowledged that capital punishment is _arguably_ a moral good. As for it being non-lawful, I don't think there's any way you can make that argument. It is an act carried out by a duly appointed government in line with its democratically established legal structure and only occurs after multiple lengthy reviews.
> 
> And those people would be wrong.
> 
> ...




I feel the same way. The OP isn't seeing anything objectively and getting lots of knee jerk responses.

 The OP doesn't care to view the party's actions as they really were.He is stuck in his side verse the other side mentality.

 I agree now. your group needs to kick this guy to set him free and deal with whatever happens. It doesn't matter what you guys do now he is going to spread his version of how you guys roll to his friends and he has plenty of ammo. both sides have points and it sounds like both sides behaved badly.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 22, 2011)

GameOgre said:


> . . .both sides have points and it sounds like both sides behaved badly.



That doesn't make each _equally_ bad. Mind control on a misbehaving and selfish ally is a different level of bad than a revenge murder.


----------



## GameOgre (Jul 22, 2011)

No one was killed or even attacked. BEFORE the guy could do anything they changed things. So the guy maybe was GOING to do something after he was attacked but did not. The wizard at least DID attack him.


----------



## GameOgre (Jul 22, 2011)

The whole thing is silly at this point though. We could agrue back and forth all day but the point is the OP isn't seeing anything but "this guy needs to go". So he is right. For whatever reason if the group feels that the guy needs to go then they should kick him.

 Being right or wrong doesn't have a lot  to do with it. They are NOT working out. I doubt the guy will return anyway. Unless he has no other choice or is really good friends with someone.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 22, 2011)

"at this point"?

The OP was just yesterday. Do you expect the entire drama and dialog and reflections to reach conclusion in a day?

Patience.


----------



## Dannager (Jul 23, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> That doesn't make each _equally_ bad. Mind control on a misbehaving and selfish ally is a different level of bad than a revenge murder.




They're close enough to make this whole thread a giant case of the pot calling the kettle evil.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> And I acknowledged that capital punishment is _arguably_ a moral good. As for it being non-lawful, I don't think there's any way you can make that argument. It is an act carried out by a duly appointed government in line with its democratically established legal structure and only occurs after multiple lengthy reviews.




...at least that is how it is usually done in the USA.  Other places...well...



> And those people would be wrong.




But would they be CE?



> If you don't believe that the alignment game mechanic is based on real-world moral strictures and understandings, you're woefully in the dark. If you _do_ believe this, then you should probably acknowledge that an act of retribution for an evil act is probably defensible as something other than chaotic evil.




Actually I think alignments are an incredibly simplistic mechanic used to measure in game actions.  It is only when people add in real, modern world morality (y'know the kind that doesn't really exist in a medivel world) that problems begin cropping up.  



> And, importantly, there seems to be very little going on in this thread to condemn the _actually evil act_ of taking something from someone via mind control. The fighter's player arguably started the conflict by refusing to give up a magic item (though we have no context on what the item actually was, or what the party's agreed-upon loot division rules were, so this is impossible for us to judge), but the spellcaster's player _inarguably_ escalated that conflict to a level it should never have reached.




Sure, mind control is pretty evil.  Did I give the impression it was not?  All I am saying is that any player who first method of dealing with in game conflict to murder helpless people is probably going to cause many, many more problems down the road.  Maybe the mind-control happy mage should be sanctioned too.  



> To put it simply: if you're defending the guy who took advantage of someone via mind control, you don't have a lot of moral ground to stand upon when condemning the guy who tried to get back at him.




*whew* good thing I wasn't actually doing that then.


----------



## Dannager (Jul 23, 2011)

Holy Bovine said:


> ...at least that is how it is usually done in the USA.  Other places...well...




And the point is that it is _very_ possible to kill a defenseless person in a way that is both lawful and arguably within the bounds of socially-accepted morality. Thus, clearly, it must be _something else_ about his actions that makes them chaotic evil, or his actions are not chaotic evil at all.



> But would they be CE?



What?



> Actually I think alignments are an incredibly simplistic mechanic used to measure in game actions.  It is only when people add in real, modern world morality (y'know the kind that doesn't really exist in a medivel world) that problems begin cropping up.



...the morality of capital punishment isn't something that gets examined in a medieval world?

And it's ludicrous enough already without even delving into the idea that D&D doesn't represent a medieval world so much as it depicts a fantastical world free of many of the social characteristics that defined that era.



> Sure, mind control is pretty evil.  Did I give the impression it was not? All I am saying is that any player who first method of dealing with in game conflict to murder helpless people is probably going to cause many, many more problems down the road.  Maybe the mind-control happy mage should be sanctioned too.



And that's the problem - the mind-controlling Wizard was acting on behalf of - and likely with the tacit or explicit approval of - the OP. In other words, a whole lot of pot and kettle.


----------



## tylermalan (Jul 23, 2011)

This is the DUMBEST THREAD EVER!    

I say that light-heartedly, but really though... it is.  

Alishea, on a weekly basis (or however often you play) you are being held hostage by a person whose company you don't enjoy, whose personality doesn't jive with your group, and whose play style is extremely annoying at best.  This hostage situation is brought about by the connections this player has with other players from a "big" gaming group.

I know I can't be the only one rolling his eyes at this point.  

I gave you the best general advice ever in my previous post, but now I'll be more specific.  Here is how I would handle it, if I were in your exact situation:

The DM speaks to this player.  The DM tells this player that he has been getting a vibe from the group that this player's playstyle doesn't fit.  As the DM has a responsibility to the group (as opposed to only one person), the DM has spoken to half of the group (but not all) about this vibe.  The DM's hunch regarding the vibe has been verified.

Because of this, the DM believes that this player would have more fun playing with a different group - one that fits his playstyle better.  The DM explains that he believes there will be constant conflict and he doesn't want that, and explains that he knows that this player doesn't want that either (because this player is so nice and conscientious).  With all this in mind, the DM asks the player if he can help him find another group that better suits his playstyle.  The DM is firm and clear that this is not a suggestion.

Good luck!


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jul 25, 2011)

a) there's nothing about Pipes of the Sewers that makes them automatically a caster's item. 
b) how would you like it if it was your character who was mentally controlled and forced to give up his treasure?
c) it doesn't take a great mind for a character to realize "The wizard was chanting and gesturing like he does when he casts a spell and I started to feel completely different about things. The bastard mentally controlled me."
d) if a dispute about minor magical item is worth magically assaulting one of your companions you don't really have a leg to stand on if the assaulted party decides to off the assaulter. 
What do you think would happen if you did it to a merchant or an NPC noble? 
e) as to the idea that we can assess the player of the fighter based on this description as being "one of those" characters, that's just rubbish. He may be a perfectly reasonable player with a perfectly reasonable character but the original poster is coming in with a chip on their shoulder (or he could be a complete prat with the roleplaying skills of an inbred goldfish) we can't tell.
f) as to the idea that the fighter is being evil that's just rubbish. He was mentally assaulted and he took out the attacker. If you ran across a demon who was magically restrained would it be evil to kill it? 
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. "

When somebody has mentally assaulted a companion for treasure they don't qualify as innocent anymore

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

I'd say that charming somebody to steal from them isn't 'concern for the dignity of sentient beings'
And if attacking sleeping sentients was enough to mark you as evil there'd be a whole heap of 1st ed AD&D characters who were evil for attacking sleeping dragons.

g) if the treasure had previously been distributed based on need without issues did you try discussing with the player why it would be better if it went to the oracle, did you listen to his points and consider them?

h) the well issue could well come down to different ways the events were visualised, first you describe it as the rogue was pulled into the well, then it was as if he fell in (note that a rogue falling into a well that he knows about is suspicious in itself) the fighter's player might have thought that the pulled in description made it look unnatural. Also it's really not up to other players to tell him that his actions don't make sense and try and make him change them. If the GM has a problem he can do it and if he doesn't then it's not really anybody else's job.

i) How exactly is it using player knowledge to want to keep a magic item that your character can use?
It might not be the best use of it for the party but that's different from being metagaming and in a case like this it's certainly not enough reason to get worked up enough to compel another PC.
Now if an elven wizard wanted to get the +5 holy, (+3 more modifiers) longsword instead of the fighter who's fully specalised for longswords with improved critical and other abilities then the players is being a prat, but for a minor item which they can both use it's not really a huge deal, he'd probably find that he couldn't use it that well and either give it up or put some skill points in so he could use it.


----------



## willardthor (Jul 25, 2011)

Alishea said:


> We have straight-up told him and he just doesn't believe that a fighter would have no idea about a spell. He thinks that he would "feel" the charm and know what the wizard did, even though that would seem to ruin the entire charm spell and what it is used for.



Two things here:

Does a level 2 Fighter know about _charm_ spells, and
Can a _charmed_ individual feel that he was charmed, after the charm wears off?
For the first part, it depends on the fighter's background, and the level of magic in your campaign setting. If wizards and magic is/are rare, and his background does not indicate that he has spent much time with wizards, then *no way*.

For the second part, I took a look at the *Saving Throw* section in the Player's Handbook 3.5 (page 176), which explains what happens when you succeed on a saving throw. I was hoping to find the same entry contained in the Psionic's Handbook 3.5 (page 62):



> *Failing a Saving Throw against Mind-Affecting Powers:* If you fail your save, you are unaware that you have been affected by a power.




But, alas, it is not in the Player's Handbook. Strange, as I am sure that this issue is very old, since, as you say, knowing that you have been charmed completely ruins charm.

I would then say that, as always, the GM has the final say. Were I the GM, I would pick the ruling from the Psionics Handbook, and if the fighter player complains, I would tell him to put a sock in it.

Of course, the rest of the party might grow mistrustful of the wizard, knowing that if he does not get what he wants, he simply charms people into his will (I take it they saw the wizard cast the spell, and saw the fighter change his behaviour afterwards).


----------



## Dingo333 (Jul 29, 2011)

My issues with this:

Charm Person: as has been said, realizing you were charmed would ruin charm, so a failed saving throw would mean you are charmed and do not realize it. Now, if someone later said "that guy controlled you" that is another story

Loot: they were pipes, and the fighter would have no may of knowing unless a caster told him they were magical. Do you, the fighter, or anyone else in the group have a desire/ability to play the pipes? those who say no, do not get the pipes, those who say yes have a chance at them. It then falls to background and character personality

The Well: You knew it was magical, the rouge fell in trying to reach something (yes you could tell if the magic was the well or an item in said well) so you would have an idea the well is trapped magically, though not sure how. You knew the school was illusion, the rouge looked in, not hard to guess the illusion is sight based. The fighter has no idea the well is magic unless told. Has no idea the save type needed (fort for hallucinatory spores, ref for a specially constructed floor or will for an illusion). I would have had him make a perception check to see if he jumped(illusion or hallucination) in or fell(special floor) in or was pulled(some other magic force) in.

Controlling: Yes, it would be evil to control someone via an enchantment. Though not on the same level of evil as murder (do not confuse murder with capital punishment, CP is retributive after being tried and found guilty of a crime worthy of losing your life. if controling someone was worthy of CP, drug lords, gang leaders and extortionist would face it and not half a decade of jail time).

As for kicking him out, don't think of it like that, more of dissolving the group and reforming it without him being told about the new group.


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 29, 2011)

Personally, I put charming your own party members as ranking right up there with the repulsiveness of rogues/thieves who steal from their own party members.  Probably the only thing that reeks higher are those who commit party intracide.

If you have to charm your own party members to get along, why are the problem members part of your party?  If I were one of the other party members and saw the wizard charm one of my own, I'd probably quit the group shortly thereafter - after all, what's to stop the wizard from later charming me if I argue with him about something, and with perhaps dire consequences ("Fred, just hold the dragon off for a few rounds more so we can get away - after all, we're good friends and you can always count on us coming back to resurrect you if something goes wrong...")

I don't think either side was in the right on this issue.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jul 29, 2011)

willardthor said:


> Two things here:
> 
> Does a level 2 Fighter know about _charm_ spells, and
> Can a _charmed_ individual feel that he was charmed, after the charm wears off?
> For the first part, it depends on the fighter's background, and the level of magic in your campaign setting. If wizards and magic is/are rare, and his background does not indicate that he has spent much time with wizards, then *no way*.




he's adventuring with a wizard who's got it memorized. The odds are pretty good that he's seen it a few times before he's targeted by it.
Wizards enchanting and compelling people's behavior would be standard stories unless you're playing in a campaign where magic is basically unknown.

It takes very little brain power to go from 
"The wizard cast a spell that had no apparent affect and then I felt completely different and opted to give up the treasure that I really, really wanted" to realising that you were probably enspelled.

(Less obvious in other situations)



willardthor said:


> For the second part, I took a look at the *Saving Throw* section in the Player's Handbook 3.5 (page 176), which explains what happens when you succeed on a saving throw. I was hoping to find the same entry contained in the Psionic's Handbook 3.5 (page 62):




I never had that much to do with psionics but it was sufficiently different from magic in terms of class design that it may well have been a deliberate decision to give that as a benefit compared to magic.

In any case if you're bringing 3.5 in I introduce into evidence the introductory solo adventure from the red box D&D boxed set where the completely inexperienced fighter realised that he had been charmed by Bargle



willardthor said:


> But, alas, it is not in the Player's Handbook. Strange, as I am sure that this issue is very old, since, as you say, knowing that you have been charmed completely ruins charm.




It's not always clear that a charm has happened. Used subtly or backed up with sufficient roleplaying or use of diplomacy you can get away with it. (Still and silent spell help your chances as well) 

but at worst you get 1 hour per level to get what you need out of the charm. I'd hardly call that completely ruined. It does actually mean that social skills stay relevant rather than it being easy to use magic to do everything.



willardthor said:


> I would then say that, as always, the GM has the final say. Were I the GM, I would pick the ruling from the Psionics Handbook, and if the fighter player complains, I would tell him to put a sock in it.




If pathfinder intended you not to realise that you'd been enspelled _after_ the duration of the spell wore off don't you think they'd have mentioned it?

considering that you'd remember how you felt before the spell and after the spell wears off you will normally go back to feeling that way how do you think you'd explain the couple of hours when you are under the influence of the spell?



willardthor said:


> Of course, the rest of the party might grow mistrustful of the wizard, knowing that if he does not get what he wants, he simply charms people into his will (I take it they saw the wizard cast the spell, and saw the fighter change his behaviour afterwards).


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 30, 2011)

Mad Hamish said:


> he's adventuring with a wizard who's got it memorized. The odds are pretty good that he's seen it a few times before he's targeted by it.




I've watched a physician perform a field surgery during an emergency - does that mean I can do field surgery (not being a doctor) since I watched him do one? Answer - no way. Just because a fighter witnesses a wizard casting any spell, doesn't mean the fighter has an expectation of knowing what is going on in any way regarding spells.

Occupationally there is little similarity between a wizard and a fighter. Just because a wizard is around a fighter, doesn't mean either one can do the other's job in a pinch, nor have any real idea what is going on with the other.

Your logic is illogical.

Only if the fighter has any ranks in spellcraft, would there even be a chance.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 30, 2011)

If he doesn't care that his actions make everyone else unhappy, you will never be able to trust him to consider everyone's fun. Kick him out.












Alishea said:


> He even went so far as to run off by himself into a portal when the oracle and the wizard had NO spells left. He just got bored and decided to run off.



Hey look: He went to the Nine Hells and never came back.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jul 31, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> I've watched a physician perform a field surgery during an emergency - does that mean I can do field surgery (not being a doctor) since I watched him do one? Answer - no way. Just because a fighter witnesses a wizard casting any spell, doesn't mean the fighter has an expectation of knowing what is going on in any way regarding spells.
> 
> Occupationally there is little similarity between a wizard and a fighter. Just because a wizard is around a fighter, doesn't mean either one can do the other's job in a pinch, nor have any real idea what is going on with the other.
> 
> ...




So despite having seen fireballs w fighter couldn't guess that a scorched area full of bodies could have been caused by a fire spell?

A fighter having seen slow couldn't guess that if he's slowed that he's under the effect of a slow spell?

A LG fighter who was charmed by a CE wizard he knows and hates couldn't be suspicious that he'd been affected by a spell (after the duration runs out) if he'd been charmed and found himself liking him for 5 hours?

Obviously somebody without spellcraft isn't going to get all the information that a person with spellcraft (or possibly knowledge arcana) will but there is a level of basic information that should be available for things smarter than rocks.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

Certainly he could - after the fact. But when a wizard is casting, the fighter is not going to know what is going on, and that's what this discussion is all about. After he survives a fireball, he knows it was a fireball cast, but not before it was cast, not unless he had ranks in spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana.

If you don't have the skill ranks or are not a non-caster of the spell cast, the PC in question is "no smarter than a rock". If you don't have the appropriate skill ranks in stealth you can't perfrom stealth, same with knowledge arcana and spellcraft. No skills, then no way to recognize spells being cast, until after you see the effects of the spell.

Charm spells are a bit different. If you fail your save you won't know you're enchanted until the spell expires. If you do save, you won't know that an attempt to charm you has occurred.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jul 31, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> Certainly he could - after the fact. But when a wizard is casting, the fighter is not going to know what is going on, and that's what this discussion is all about. After he survives a fireball, he knows it was a fireball cast, but not before it was cast, not unless he had ranks in spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana.
> 
> If you don't have the skill ranks or are not a non-caster of the spell cast, the PC in question is "no smarter than a rock". If you don't have the appropriate skill ranks in stealth you can't perfrom stealth, same with knowledge arcana and spellcraft. No skills, then no way to recognize spells being cast, until after you see the effects of the spell.
> 
> Charm spells are a bit different. If you fail your save you won't know you're enchanted until the spell expires. If you do save, you won't know that an attempt to charm you has occurred.




here's the bit from the original post
" He refused to hand it over and the wizard cast a charm spell on him. Well, as soon as the fighter heard that the wizard had charmed him he waited until we had rested for the night and said that he was going to coup de grace the wizard during his watch. "

that's what's being discussed, not identifying the spell when it is cast.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

Mad Hamish said:


> here's the bit from the original post
> " He refused to hand it over and the wizard cast a charm spell on him. Well, as soon as the fighter heard that the wizard had charmed him he waited until we had rested for the night and said that he was going to coup de grace the wizard during his watch. "
> 
> that's what's being discussed, not identifying the spell when it is cast.




As I said, Charm spells work differently, unless the fighter knows a charm spell was cast (as in someone told him it happened) there is no way for him to know it happened. Whether he makes his saving throw or not will not let him know that it happened at all. While he is charmed, he won't know he's charmed. And when its over he won't know it happened.

If the bad guy force him to kill all his companions, when the charm is over he might be aware that something happened. However, since the charm is being caused by a fellow party member, unless one of the other PC's let's him know it happened. He won't know the difference - as if nothing happened at all. This only applies to spells like Charm, not spells with obvious physical effects like burnt bodies from a Fireball. Charm has no obvious physical effect that the Fighter can recognize before nor after the fact.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jul 31, 2011)

Sorry, but I have some trouble understanding the OP.



Alishea said:


> So we have a bit of an issue. We have been able to finally find players that we like except for one. He is a major metagamer. For example, we had some party discord about loot essentially the fighter (metagamer) wanted to hold on to a magical item that was meant for a caster. The oracle (me) wanted the item. He refused to hand it over and the wizard cast a charm spell on him. Well, as soon as the fighter heard that the wizard had charmed him he waited until we had rested for the night and said that he was going to coup de grace the wizard during his watch.



So, he was metagaming because he didn't give away an item away (I assume) his character found first, because the DM intended it to be for someone else? Who was metagaming there?
And then the (I assume) good aligned wizard mind controlled him to give it to someone else? Just because the item would be cooler for his buddy?
Maybe trying to kill him is a hard reaction, but I saw no metagaming on the fighter's part...



> This caused the rest of the group to get angry saying that he had no reason to hate or kill the wizard that a level 2 fighter would have no idea what the wizard did when he did his magic. In order for the group to continue on the DM allowed the wizard to go back and change his action after the spell.



Why not? Assume another character was charmed and tricked to give away all his items to a NPC enchanter. Would he think the next day anything was normal? The spell stats nowhere that the person hit cannot think clearly after the duration expires.
BTW, had the fighter ever seen the wizard using the spell on someone else?



> We are thinking about clamming up and not saying anything and just passing notes the entire time.



Not very mature...


----------



## Walking Dad (Jul 31, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Alishea*
> 
> 
> _  He even went so far as to run off by himself into a portal when the  oracle and the wizard had NO spells left. He just got bored and decided  to run off._



Absolutely no reason for this... unless spellcasters insist on going nova each fight, meaning resting 8hrs+ after each encounter...


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jul 31, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> As I said, Charm spells work differently, unless the fighter knows a charm spell was cast (as in someone told him it happened) there is no way for him to know it happened. Whether he makes his saving throw or not will not let him know that it happened at all. While he is charmed, he won't know he's charmed. And when its over he won't know it happened.




Got a rules cite for that?
Because I haven't seen anything in the rules stating it.

Also here's your position from the post on Yesterday 06:13 PM

"Charm spells are a bit different. If you fail your save you won't know you're enchanted until the spell expires."

which reads as stating that you will know you were enchanted once the spell has expired



gamerprinter said:


> If the bad guy force him to kill all his companions, when the charm is over he might be aware that something happened. However, since the charm is being caused by a fellow party member, unless one of the other PC's let's him know it happened. He won't know the difference - as if nothing happened at all. This only applies to spells like Charm, not spells with obvious physical effects like burnt bodies from a Fireball. Charm has no obvious physical effect that the Fighter can recognize before nor after the fact.




Party member or not doesn't come into it.
Magic is being used to change how somebody feels and it's likely to be extremely apparent to the person who was affected that something changed how they felt immediately after the wizard cast a spell and a few hours later they can't see any reason why their attitude changed.

a) the knowledge of the existance of spells that affect the mind and perception will be pretty much universal in darmned near any campaign
b) "wizard cast spell which did nothing I could see" -> "me mind changed"
"wizard enchanted kobold earlier", "maybe wizard enchanted me"

if you are saying that you can't possible connect those facts unless you have spellcraft I will disagree unless you have a very clear rules cite.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

In reading the OP, and what the OP later posted the player in question doesn't seem to care about his character so much, as just playing his alignment as a chaotic neutral. In my mind a CN character might just let the wizard have the magic item as getting it himself. He chose the item to remain with himself at that moment, but could have easily gone the other way, if his mood was different. If a charm spell coaxed him to let the wizard have the item, he might not know that it was not his decision to do so.

If on the other hand it was completely out of character for him to give up the item, then sure, there's a chance that he might suspect magic was used on him to force the decision. If so, he'd recognize that something like a charm spell was used on him.

I just don't think it was obvious, nor out of character for a CN - which could do anything (or at least that's what this player thinks a CN character might do). If the character thought he gain some advantage by letting the wizard take the item instead, he might just do that, and that too would be an appropriately CN tack to take.

This thinking wouldn't apply to every player/PC, but it seems it might be very appropriate for the one in question.

With the above understanding (as I see it), the fighter would have little idea unless somebody told him he was charmed, that anything untoward happened to him.

Then all of my previous posts are accurate.

Personally, I think using a charm spell on one of your own members is a dirty thing to do. As a player, I wouldn't play with a group that would take this tact. But then as a player, I wouldn't deliberately screw over another party member out of a magic item more appropriate for someone else in the party.

Overall, the party and this particular player are both dysfunctional.

But my reasoning still stands.

Edit: (citing rules from the Pathfinder Core) 

*Charm Person*
_This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw._

_The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming._

(me now) Since the Charmed Person in question is already an ally, it would be even less a problem to convince them to do a party friendly act. If the action desired, is perceived to be in opposition to the charmed person's goals, they would receive an opposed check (don't know if that was done in this particular instance). If they fail their opposed check, however, nothing in the spell description suggests that the player or other Charmed Person would know he was charmed after-the-fact.


----------



## cyderak (Jul 31, 2011)

I say you should let him have the Wizard-type magic item and the DM should have it slowly effect him in a cursed manner.  

I've always said,  there is a way to deal with anything the players think is immune to DM-intervention.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Jul 31, 2011)

This is no-doubt going to get ignored by most future posters but...

The question was "how to punish a metagamer?" not "who's actions were justified?", not "do fighters know about charms?", not "Does this make the wizard evil?", etc.

The GM seems to have already made her choice on all those issues, and it seems most of her group agree with her. The topic seems to have gotten derailed into more questioning of everyone's judgement than actually addressing her question though.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

cyderak said:


> I say you should let him have the Wizard-type magic item and the DM should have it slowly effect him in a cursed manner.
> 
> I've always said, there is a way to deal with anything the players think is immune to DM-intervention.




I think the only solution is to talk to the player 'out of game' and try to convince him that his roleplaying tactics serves only to bring discontinuity and 'unfun' to the entire group, and that doing so is selfish and a 'dickhead maneuver'. Either the player changes his tactics or he leaves the table.

I don't think charming him or cursing him will bring anything positive to the game. Either he stops his behavior or he leaves the table permanently - that in my mind is the only reasonable solution.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

SnowleopardVK said:


> This is no-doubt going to get ignored by most future posters but...
> 
> The question was "how to punish a metagamer?" not "who's actions were justified?", not "do fighters know about charms?", not "Does this make the wizard evil?", etc.
> 
> The GM seems to have already made her choice on all those issues, and it seems most of her group agree with her. The topic seems to have gotten derailed into more questioning of everyone's judgement than actually addressing her question though.




How many forum threads, except for the most contraversial first posts, aren't derailed by page four anyway... just saying - I don't think I've ever read any thread on any forum that goes for page after page that isn't always derailed.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Jul 31, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> How many forum threads, except for the most contraversial first posts, aren't derailed by page four anyway... just saying - I don't think I've ever read any thread on any forum that goes for page after page that isn't always derailed.




Just because it always happens doesn't mean it's okay to go ahead and do it...


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

True, but I wasn't derailing so much as responding to a disagreement with a point I made before it was fully derailed. Its a forum, though, we discuss issues related to the OP in addition to specifically the OP. Whether it seems right or not, I'm not judging, just participating in forum discussion - even at the expense of a derailed thread.

While it doesn't specifically address the OP's exact concerns, it is related, so not completely out of line (not a complete derail, IMO.)


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 31, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> Charm spells are a bit different. If you fail your save you won't know you're enchanted until the spell expires. *If you do save, you won't know that an attempt to charm you has occurred.*




Wrong.
"*A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.* Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells."

This was basically a copy-paste from the very same 3E rule.

Whether he can deduce that he was targeted with charm specifically is questionable, but if he makes the save, he totally senses an attempted mind-rape of some sort occured.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jul 31, 2011)

SnowleopardVK said:


> This is no-doubt going to get ignored by most future posters but...
> 
> The question was "how to punish a metagamer?" not "who's actions were justified?", not "do fighters know about charms?", not "Does this make the wizard evil?", etc.
> 
> The GM seems to have already made her choice on all those issues, and it seems most of her group agree with her. The topic seems to have gotten derailed into more questioning of everyone's judgement than actually addressing her question though.




Ok, you can stop metagaming in the OP case by not handing out items to a character, if you totally want the item to end with another...

come on, we all metagame from time to time... but we usually do it to keep the story flowing and to ignore possible plot holes.

The problem in the OP was that one guy refused to matagame that his guy will unselfishly give a valuable magic item to someone else without any benefit or payment.

He should be punished for disrupting the game and being uncooperative as a player, not for metagaming. There is no need to punish metagaming at all, if it doesn't decrease the fun for anyone.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Wrong.
> "*A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.* Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells."
> 
> This was basically a copy-paste from the very same 3E rule.
> ...




I was looking at the PF Charm Person spell, and didn't see the word 'tingle' there. Perhaps its elsewhere. I don't deny that one should recognize that a spell was cast on you, even if it failed, but its not worded that way in the spell. The real point is that the fighter shouldn't automatically recognize that a charm spell was attempted against him - that's all I'm saying.

I admit before actually looking for a spell citation which I finally did, I may have misworded my meaning to suggest otherwise, this was not my intent.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 31, 2011)

Not a charm spell, like being IDed with spellcraft.  But if he makes his save, he knows a) someone just tried to mind rape me and b) the wizard was using weird gestures and vocal sounds and looking at me.

At that point, if i were the fighter, I would be initiating the "hands to throat" combat maneuver, followed by my spellcraft check of yelling at him, "WHAT THE  DID YOU TRY TO DO TO ME?!?!?!"


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 31, 2011)

Me, I'd just say goodbye and leave the table as soon as another player tried to charm me. That's uncalled for, dirty pool and not a group that I would feel comfortable to play any games with. If the DM and other players thought I was being as ass-hat for character selfishness, I would hope the players would be adult enough to talk to me out of game asking me to play differently - not use a game spell to control my character. Who wants to play with a group like that?


----------



## cyderak (Aug 2, 2011)

SnowleopardVK said:


> This is no-doubt going to get ignored by most future posters but...
> 
> The question was "how to punish a metagamer?" not "who's actions were justified?", not "do fighters know about charms?", not "Does this make the wizard evil?", etc.
> 
> The GM seems to have already made her choice on all those issues, and it seems most of her group agree with her. The topic seems to have gotten derailed into more questioning of everyone's judgement than actually addressing her question though.




I was assuming you were playing with friends........and I don't know how your game sessions go,  but I don't "PUNISH" my friends........ That kind of behavior is demeaning and condescending at best.......

No one likes to be pulled aside like a child to be slapped on the wrists for a stupid move.  .......

If one of your friends can't take a little good natured ribbing (being cursed for grabbing a magic item their character can't use) because of a stupid move on their part then you really need to take a good look across the game table to re-evaluate who your gaming with.


----------



## lobsterGun (Aug 3, 2011)

Dingo333 said:


> My issues with this:
> 
> Charm Person: as has been said, realizing you were charmed would ruin charm, so a failed saving throw would mean you are charmed and do not realize it. Now, if someone later said "that guy controlled you" that is another story




Charm Person is a first level spell with a duration of 1 hour per level.  There is nothing in the description of the spell that claims that it makes the user forget it was cast on him.  

As a GM, I'd rule that the wizard should be glad it lasts as long as it does because it gives him time to get out of town.


----------



## Dingo333 (Aug 3, 2011)

Charm does not control anyone, and even says you can not control them

it says



> This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
> 
> The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.




So the fighter would still have no idea, making the throw or not, that he was charmed. The wizard cast the spell, asks nicely and the fighter willingly agrees. Then the player, unhappy that his control of his character was circumvented, attacks said wizard. That is metagaming my friends.

On another note, making your save does not mean you know who did it or how. This is out of character knowledge and the player using it is again metagaming.

Dick moves all around, and I would recommend, if you do not like playing with him, then dont, blacklist/black ball, can it really stop you and the rest of your friends from gaming at someone's kitchen table?


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 3, 2011)

Dingo333 said:


> On another note, making your save does not mean you know who did it or how. This is out of character knowledge and the player using it is again metagaming.




A wizard casting a spell with somatic and verbal components is obviously casting a spell; if you annoy a wizard, and he starts casting a spell, and you feel yourself save against something (as was quoted from the rules above), it's pretty darn obvious what just went down even if you don't know the specific type of spell.

And frankly, metagaming seems moot here. We haven't even proven intent, since there's enough opinion here that he would know it for us to give the player the benefit of the doubt. It's the PVP that's the problem, not the metagaming.


----------



## Walking Dad (Aug 3, 2011)

Dingo333 said:


> Charm does not control anyone, and even says you can not control them
> 
> it says
> 
> ...



If he makes the throw, he knows it (rule cited some posts above).

If not:

The characters are mass charmed to give most of their gold for an orphanage (hint: this is a lie) by a NPC. After the spell duration, they didn't wonder why they did it unquestioning and live happy ever after...
not happening!



> Dick moves all around, ...



Yes, requiring a character to give away an item without in-game reason, charming a player character, bending the rules and then move as a group vs a single player and blame him on the internet...

and , yeah, a character who didn't surrender immediately an item to another character.


----------



## Dingo333 (Aug 3, 2011)

You are making Charm Person out to be "turn person into slave"

All you get is you think the caster is your trusted friend and ally. So your trusted friend and ally comes up to you and says, "Hey bud, the orphanage I work at needs some green to stay open, can you spare anything?" you look and see you have $100 on you, you are a tightwad, but your friend needs that job (insert sob story here) and give him $75. 3 hours later, do you wonder why you gave him 3/4 of your money, not likely. HE IS YOUR TRUSTED FRIEND AND ALLY, YOU HAVE NO REASON NOT TO BELIEVE HIM.

and [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION]. So you go out downtown. As you are walking, someone is shouting in a language you do not know and pointing wildly. Can you tell the difference between "Help a T-rex is chasing me" and "Miss, you dropped your purse"



> "A creature that *successfully saves* against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but *cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack*. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells."




There is no (almost) way the fighter would have known what spell was being cast and, as he DID NOT SAVE, has no idea a spell was even cast at him. For all he knows, the wizard was casting alarm on their campsite, or calling a demon to eat all their souls. 

and yes, dick moves. Threatening someone, attempting (only because DM used rewind to stop it) to kill a helpless person, not by accident, but premeditated. Hmm, most places that gives you somewhere between life in prison and the death penalty. Now, controlling someone through a substance (magic is a substance) [also, this is not entirely true as no one was controlled], Stealing (which the item was given freely) and then lying. All that amounts to 5, maybe 10 years. Which is the greater of 2 evils?

Call me what you like, but the rules are as stiff as ever, none have been bent in my posts. All is perfectly right by the rules.

And as for the original question. How to punish a metagamer? DO NOT PLAY WITH HIM


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 3, 2011)

Dingo333 said:


> You are making Charm Person out to be "turn person into slave"
> 
> All you get is you think the caster is your trusted friend and ally. So your trusted friend and ally comes up to you and says, "Hey bud, the orphanage I work at needs some green to stay open, can you spare anything?" you look and see you have $100 on you, you are a tightwad, but your friend needs that job (insert sob story here) and give him $75. 3 hours later, do you wonder why you gave him 3/4 of your money, not likely. HE IS YOUR TRUSTED FRIEND AND ALLY, YOU HAVE NO REASON NOT TO BELIEVE HIM.




Sure you have reason not to believe him. He's no longer your trusted friend and ally; you did something you wouldn't have done without without magic; it doesn't take much paranoia to conclude that the wizard used magic to make you do that.



> and  @prosfilaes . So you go out downtown. As you are walking, someone is shouting in a language you do not know and pointing wildly. Can you tell the difference between "Help a T-rex is chasing me" and "Miss, you dropped your purse"




Yes, because there are no T-rex on my world. Context is king.



> There is no (almost) way the fighter would have known what spell was being cast and, as he DID NOT SAVE, has no idea a spell was even cast at him. For all he knows, the wizard was casting alarm on their campsite, or calling a demon to eat all their souls.



Nobody is going to stop in the middle of an argument to cast alarm. If he was calling a demon to hurt them, killing him was justified. And again, it's not about whether the fighter could have known with certainty what the spell was, but whether a little paranoia could have made the guess. 



> Now, controlling someone through a substance (magic is a substance) [also, this is not entirely true as no one was controlled], Stealing (which the item was given freely) and then lying. All that amounts to 5, maybe 10 years.



In any jurisdiction that recognizes magic, casting a spell on an unwilling target would be battery. It's a little more complex, since he didn't own the item, but that could make this robbery which is 25 to life in California, not counting any aggravating factors of using mind-controlling magic (which would be at least equal to that of using a gun.)



> Which is the greater of 2 evils?



So what? It doesn't make him a metagamer, nor does it mean that what was done to him was fair.


----------



## tylermalan (Aug 4, 2011)

I _cannot believe_ this thread still exists, and people have been actively debating the nuances of Charm Person in order to shed light on whether or not an imaginary character would feel/be justified in his actions, as if to say that if he IS justified, it somehow justifies the social choices of the jerk who is controlling him.  I know people like to argue about D&D, but this thread should have been over the moment it was started, as the answer to the original problem (which is a social problem) was addressed so long ago.


----------



## Walking Dad (Aug 4, 2011)

Dingo333 said:


> ...
> 
> And as for the original question. How to punish a metagamer? DO NOT PLAY WITH HIM




I'm a metagamer:



If the heroes meet first time in a tavern, my character will bond with them to make an adventurer party, not the NPCs.
If I find an item more suited to another character, I will let him have it, even if I don't know in-play each of us will find something later.
If the DM introduces an adventure with a not so strong hook for my characters backstory, my character will be swayed more easily to take it than he should.

So, no one should play with me?


----------



## Walking Dad (Aug 4, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> I _cannot believe_ this thread still exists, and people have been actively debating the nuances of Charm Person in order to shed light on whether or not an imaginary character would feel/be justified in his actions, as if to say that if he IS justified, it somehow justifies the social choices of the jerk who is controlling him.  I know people like to argue about D&D, but this thread should have been over the moment it was started, as the answer to the original problem (which is a social problem) was addressed so long ago.



I argue that it was neither meta-gaming, nor a jerk reaction. Maybe it was the later. The fighter player should have just left...


----------



## tylermalan (Aug 4, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I argue that it was neither meta-gaming, nor a jerk reaction. Maybe it was the later. The fighter player should have just left...




The point is that there is no way, based upon the OP, to know just who was being a jerk in this case, as obviously the OP is biased towards either himself or his friends and against the outsider.  Regardless, _none of that matters_.  What matters is that two or more people don't get along (for whatever reason).  The answer is _so simple_ and has _nothing to do with the game:_ do not play with players that you don't get along with.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 5, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> The point is that there is no way, based upon the OP, to know just who was being a jerk in this case, as obviously the OP is biased towards either himself or his friends and against the outsider.  Regardless, _none of that matters_.  What matters is that two or more people don't get along (for whatever reason).  The answer is _so simple_ and has _nothing to do with the game:_ do not play with players that you don't get along with.




But we only have one scene. We don't know if they don't get along. Furthermore, if your own behavior is causing the problem, then it's better to fix your behavior then to get rid of everyone you get into a conflict with.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Aug 5, 2011)

I am a bit confused here. 

Killing a fellow PC in his sleep is no fun but hiding behind a charm spell and the rather weak arguement that the fighter would have no idea what happened is fun?

The arguements against the fighter dont even make sense. I dont like you, I wont give you something, suddenly I find myself liking you a lot and giving you what you want? Combine that with knowing your one of those mage people and even the thickest brick of a fighter is going to figure out he was magically charmed/manipulated/tricked in some manner. Once that realization comes the fighter has every right to be paranoid, wonder what else the mage can do, and remove the threat. I mean if the mage has no problem casting baneful spells on me just to get some trinket then who knows what they will do.

Sure the player can be annoying as a metagamer but the rest of the party doesnt sound all that great either here.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Aug 5, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> The point is that there is no way, based upon the OP, to know just who was being a jerk in this case, as obviously the OP is biased towards either himself or his friends and against the outsider.  Regardless, _none of that matters_.  What matters is that two or more people don't get along (for whatever reason).  The answer is _so simple_ and has _nothing to do with the game:_ do not play with players that you don't get along with.




How cant he know? He woke up the next day and realized that for no reason what so ever the mage became his BFF. Even more strange to the fighter he doesnt think the mage is his BFF any more.

Sounds like a rather easy deductive process to figure out the sneaky mage must have done something.


----------



## tylermalan (Aug 5, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> But we only have one scene. We don't know if they don't get along. Furthermore, if your own behavior is causing the problem, then it's better to fix your behavior then to get rid of everyone you get into a conflict with.




Uhhh... what.  

First, we _can_ reasonably assume that they don't get along.  The OP stated that they can't kick him out for fear of being blackballed.  If that's the only reason they haven't kicked him out yet, you think they're all best friends?  Again, I'm astounded at how many people pay attention to the in-game "scene" more than the obvious social interactions at work here.  I've said it before and I'll say it again - this has _nothing to do with the game._

And second, the OP didn't ask for a therapy session.  He (or she) came to us with a problem player and asked how to take care of him.  I'm not about to delve into the OP's psychological state to analyze whether or not he or she is really the one who is at fault - I'm just going to help the OP.  Why would we NOT take the OP on his or her word that the fighter is truly the problem player?  I also think it's obvious that the OP doesn't consider the Mage to be a problem - this may be because they're friends, but that's beside the point (or, rather, that's _entirely_ the point).



DocMoriartty said:


> How cant he know? He woke up the next day and realized that for no reason what so ever the mage became his BFF. Even more strange to the fighter he doesnt think the mage is his BFF any more.
> 
> Sounds like a rather easy deductive process to figure out the sneaky mage must have done something.




I really kinda feel like you just read my post up to the third comma... and nothing after.  As I mentioned earlier in this very post, this has nothing to do with the game.  When I say 
"in this case," I'm not referring to the imaginary case of fighter vs. wizard concerning magic items in-game.  I'm referring to player vs. player out-of-game, where the OP and the mage are clearly friends, the fighter is a jerk, and the group doesn't like him.  Don't play with people that you don't like or can't get along with.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 5, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> He (or she) came to us with a problem player and asked how to take care of him.  I'm not about to delve into the OP's psychological state to analyze whether or not he or she is really the one who is at fault - I'm just going to help the OP.




But you didn't answer the question, either. The question was not should I throw this player out, but rather how should I punish him without throwing him out.

And people frequently ask the wrong question. We're too close to our own issues to see what the real problem is frequently, especially if we're part of the problem. The nice thing about asking humans is that sometimes they can tell you you need to look at the picture a different way, perhaps looking at your own responsibility, instead of just answering the question asked.


----------



## tylermalan (Aug 5, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> But you didn't answer the question, either. The question was not should I throw this player out, but rather how should I punish him without throwing him out.




Oh, but I _did_ answer the question, further lending credence to my belief (hitherto unstated) that most people aren't reading this thread, and are merely reacting to the in-game stuff that happened as though THAT'S what this is all about.  It's not.

The question was, from the OP:



Alishea said:


> Any suggestions?




And my answer, on page 2, was the following:



tylermalan said:


> In-game "punishment" is silly.
> 
> This is a social issue that is, by-and-large, totally separate from the game that you're playing.  It should be dealt with as such - by this I mean: would you go to the movies with someone that annoys you?  Maybe once, before you know how annoying they are, but would you keep doing it?
> 
> If the person is doing something that you don't like, you talk to them about it, like real people.  If the person continues to do it, you stop wasting your time trying to have fun with someone who obviously doesn't care.  It's very simple - don't make this about the game; this is about personality conflicts between two real people (or between one person and many others).




It is also clear (from the thread starter's other posts) that he wants to boot the problem player (who he obviously thinks is the fighter) but feels as though he can't.

Remember, I'm not claiming that no one is answering the question.  In fact, I'm rather confident that most people _are_ giving suggestions.  At the same time, I'm not going to tell the OP that he asked the wrong question - in fact, I think that's a little presumptuous.

It's just that I'm totally blown away by how many people consider this to be an in-game issue as opposed to a social issue, as if everything would suddenly be hunky-dory if the OP and the rest of his group came to the realization that an imaginary charm spell really _would_ alert the fighter... or whatever.  Come on, people.  I know that this board's purpose is to discuss the game, but I would say that I answered the social question (which is what this is) far more succinctly than anyone who provided a dissertation on the nuances of Charm Person.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Aug 5, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> I really kinda feel like you just read my post up to the third comma... and nothing after.  As I mentioned earlier in this very post, this has nothing to do with the game.  When I say
> "in this case," I'm not referring to the imaginary case of fighter vs. wizard concerning magic items in-game.  I'm referring to player vs. player out-of-game, where the OP and the mage are clearly friends, the fighter is a jerk, and the group doesn't like him.  Don't play with people that you don't like or can't get along with.




In that case then inviting the player over to start with was the mistake. If everyone else was already together and knew this guy, and still chose to invite him then it falls on them to either accept how he is going to act or put down some ground rules. If you just had to bring him in then the solution is to write up some ground rules, lie to the fighter and say you all wrote this and agreed to it from the beginning so he doesnt feel targetted, and list behavior that is not acceptable at your table.

Out of curiosity, does everyone else play as selfless heroes with no greed what so ever? Are they all willing to give up whatever item someone else in the party might want? Would the mage have charmed another player to get what he wanted or was this done only because the "fighter is a jerk and not giving me what I want". I ask because the way the party is acting here does not sound any better than the fighter.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 5, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> At the same time, I'm not going to tell the OP that he asked the wrong question - in fact, I think that's a little presumptuous.




But you did; the question he asked was how do I punish a metagamer, not should I get rid of this player.

There are a lot of questions that I think it mandatory to question the question. The appropriate response to "How do I cook California condor?" is not "Like turkey". If someone asks how to open the case on a CRT, I'd feel very remiss not to point out that odds you can fix anything inside are low compared to the odds you kill yourself.



> as if everything would suddenly be hunky-dory if the OP and the rest of his group came to the realization that an imaginary charm spell really _would_ alert the fighter...



No, but if the OP acknowledges that, they'll have to stop hiding behind the argument that they're punishing a metagamer, and look at the real problem.



> I know that this board's purpose is to discuss the game, but I would say that I answered the social question (which is what this is) far more succinctly than anyone who provided a dissertation on the nuances of Charm Person.



But as you say, this board's purpose is to discuss the game, not to answer the OP's question as succinctly as possible.


----------



## tylermalan (Aug 7, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> But you did; the question he asked was how do I punish a metagamer, not should I get rid of this player.




You really think that "Kick him out." is _not_ an appropriate response to the question, "Any suggestions for how to punish a metagamer?"



prosfilaes said:


> No, but if the OP acknowledges that, they'll have to stop hiding behind the argument that they're punishing a metagamer, and look at the real problem.




And what is the _real_ problem?  (I'll give you two hints - it's a social problem, and I've already told you, and the OP, the answer in previous posts.)



prosfilaes said:


> But as you say, this board's purpose is to discuss the game, not to answer the OP's question as succinctly as possible.




Last I checked, D&D is a social game.  I mean, I guess if you want to hijack the OP's thread to discuss Meteor Swarm (or something else that has nothing to do with the _real_ problem)... go right ahead, buddy.


----------



## tylermalan (Aug 7, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> In that case then inviting the player over to start with was the mistake. If everyone else was already together and knew this guy, and still chose to invite him then it falls on them to either accept how he is going to act or put down some ground rules.




I agree that this would have been appropriate, adult behavior, but the mistake was already made... and they certainly don't have to accept how he behaves if they don't like it.  Who hangs out with people they don't like unless they have to?  Free time is precious, and it is silly to waste it spending time with people whose company you don't enjoy.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 7, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> You really think that "Kick him out." is _not_ an appropriate response to the question, "Any suggestions for how to punish a metagamer?"




That wasn't the full question, which specified that that kicking him out was not an option. Frankly, I find kicking a metagamer out to be completely disproportionate and far from the first solution to be tried. If that were the real issue here, then, no, it would not be an appropriate response.



> And what is the _real_ problem?




Certainly part of it is that the OP doesn't know what the real problem is. 



> Last I checked, D&D is a social game.  I mean, I guess if you want to hijack the OP's thread to discuss Meteor Swarm (or something else that has nothing to do with the _real_ problem)... go right ahead, buddy.




If you claim that something is metagaming in a thread, it makes the question of whether that's metagaming fair game.


----------



## Osagasu (Aug 7, 2011)

Let's assume for the moment that it is metagaming.  It's been made obvious that this is a player, not the DM, asking the question, so I have to ask (and I'm sorry if this has been answered, it's very possible I missed a few posts): What is the DM doing to punish the player?  It's their job first and foremost.  More importantly, where was the DM when the metagaming took place, when the DM was supposed to rule on any complaints quickly so play could continue?


----------



## tylermalan (Aug 8, 2011)

You're still missing the point, prosfilaes, and are arguing points that just don't matter.

Let's just cut the bull - for some reason, you don't want to admit that this is a purely social problem.  Fine.  Maybe you just want to argue, I don't know.

The point is that this has nothing to do with metagaming.  They don't want to kick him out purely because he's a metagamer.  And in fact, I agree with you - in my first post in this thread, I said that punishing a metagamer is silly.  My underlying point was that if you really want to punish someone, not only does that mean you probably just don't like them, but also that the punishment doled out won't make you enjoy your time with this person any more.

I understand that the question of metagaming is fair game, and that's why I said "I understand the purpose of this board is to discuss the game..." in reference to the discussions on Charm Person.  But I view _this_ as the true hijack - I don't have a problem with you or anyone else who discussed Charm Person.  I was merely expressing my disdain at how many people don't see that this is pointless discourse because this problem, this group, this player, and the OP's ultimate question has nothing to do with the game that they're all playing.  They could be playing any other game, or doing any other activity.

They aren't considering punishing this guy because he's a metagamer.  His metagamer tendencies are an expression of personality traits that, for whatever reason, don't jive with the rest of the OP's group.  That's all it is.  These personality traits, being inherent, would express themselves in other ways if they were playing a different game.  In turn, they want to give him the boot because they don't get along - and they should.  Not only would the group likely be happier without this guy, but this guy would probably be happier with another group.  

How silly to say that the OP doesn't know what the real problem is - of _course_ he knows what the problem is.  Do _you_ need someone to tell you when you don't like another person?  I simply don't think that their fun game of D&D amongst friends should turn into either a therapy session for the friends (in which they all come to realize that they are truly the problem) or a rehabilitation clinic for the outsider (during which he realizes the error of his ways and makes a 180 in his personality).  It won't happen, and the true answer is far more simple.


----------



## Walking Dad (Aug 8, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> ...
> 
> How silly to say that the OP doesn't know what the real problem is - of _course_ he knows what the problem is.  Do _you_ need someone to tell you when you don't like another person?  I simply don't think that their fun game of D&D amongst friends should turn into either a therapy session for the friends (in which they all come to realize that they are truly the problem) or a rehabilitation clinic for the outsider (during which he realizes the error of his ways and makes a 180 in his personality).  It won't happen, and the true answer is far more simple.



But he doesn't see the problem as you said yourself... he asked about metagaming, but you say he just don't likes the player. Best solution would be trying to talk with each other and that there colliding game styles / personalities will diminish the fun for both of them...


----------



## tylermalan (Aug 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> But he doesn't see the problem as you said yourself... he asked about metagaming, but you say he just don't likes the player. Best solution would be trying to talk with each other and that there colliding game styles / personalities will diminish the fun for both of them...




What I mean is that the OP inherently knows what the problem is (personality conflicts), and even answered his own question with the correct answer when he suggested giving this player the boot.  He didn't ask about metagaming; he _mentioned_ metagaming and then described a bunch of essentially social issues.  He then gave the group's hitherto solution when he said, "We are thinking about clamming up and not saying anything and just passing notes the entire time."  This is a social response to a social problem in a social game.  The OP knows, and it is silly to assume that he doesn't.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Aug 15, 2011)

The attempts at in-game solutions are absurd. It's a problem with a player, not a character.

Tell the guy he's being a prick and needs to consider the rest of the people at the table. This has nothing to do with alignment or anything. It's someone being a self-centered jerk who needs to be put in their place.

If they want to act like a child then treat them like a child. Give them a time-out and tell them they can rejoin the adventure when they've thought about things.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 16, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> I mean, I guess if you want to hijack the OP's thread to discuss Meteor Swarm (or something else that has nothing to do with the _real_ problem)... go right ahead, buddy.



What if every time the problem player sits down at the table, someone casts a real-life _meteor swarm_ on him. 

Would that help solve the problem?


----------



## Walking Dad (Aug 18, 2011)

SlyDoubt said:


> The attempts at in-game solutions are absurd. It's a problem with a player, not a character.
> 
> Tell the guy he's being a prick and needs to consider the rest of the people at the table. This has nothing to do with alignment or anything. It's someone being a self-centered jerk who needs to be put in their place.
> 
> If they want to act like a child then treat them like a child. Give them a time-out and tell them they can rejoin the adventure when they've thought about things.



Did you read the thread? The player isn't necessarily a prick. Why should he be called childish and be 'booted' from the game? And is it less self-centered to say: "Yes, he is a prick, cast a spell on his character to take him over! That will teach him not to give his found magic items to another character I like more!"

They should do the only sane thing, departing from each other without trying to find the guilty and find groups/players more suited to their game styles.


----------



## Alishea (Aug 18, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> What I mean is that the OP inherently knows what the problem is (personality conflicts), and even answered his own question with the correct answer when he suggested giving this player the boot.  He didn't ask about metagaming; he _mentioned_ metagaming and then described a bunch of essentially social issues.  He then gave the group's hitherto solution when he said, "We are thinking about clamming up and not saying anything and just passing notes the entire time."  This is a social response to a social problem in a social game.  The OP knows, and it is silly to assume that he doesn't.




SHE! 

LOL I guess it's fitting to assume that I am a man since us women are outnumbered in RPGs.


----------



## Alishea (Aug 18, 2011)

And I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this thread, I'm pregnant and we've had some craziness at my house. 

We just decided to part ways. We told him that our playing styles weren't a good match and he agreed. Now we are working with the 4 people we have. But it's been a lot better, we are actually good friends and do stuff outside of gaming as well. 

So the story at least has a happy ending


----------



## SlyDoubt (Aug 18, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Did you read the thread? The player isn't necessarily a prick. Why should he be called childish and be 'booted' from the game? And is it less self-centered to say: "Yes, he is a prick, cast a spell on his character to take him over! That will teach him not to give his found magic items to another character I like more!"
> 
> They should do the only sane thing, departing from each other without trying to find the guilty and find groups/players more suited to their game styles.




I read the OP.

I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek because the responses trying to work things out in game are just silly. If someone isn't on the same wavelength as the rest of the party there needs to be a discussion.

I'm saying the same thing as you, you just put a more moderate and rational spin on it. Either they can stay and discuss with the group what's up and why their actions are a problem. Or if they think that's stupid they should be asked to leave the group and go find one more suitable.

Edit: That's good everything worked out as it should.


----------



## Felon (Aug 23, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Did you read the thread? The player isn't necessarily a prick. Why should he be called childish and be 'booted' from the game? And is it less self-centered to say: "Yes, he is a prick, cast a spell on his character to take him over! That will teach him not to give his found magic items to another character I like more!"



Oh, how dearly human beings love to have scapegoats. We gleefully denounce people as people as "pricks" for creating conflict, but we actually love responding in kind. Especially on the internet, and especially in this autism-magnet hobby of ours.

The rules certainly do allow characters to know when a spell has been cast on them, and there are verbal and somatic components to charm person, so I don't see the problem with the fighter knowing that the wizard tried to cast a spell on him. Furthermore, I don't see where the hallowed precepts of good role-playing prevent him from coming to the conclusion that the spell in question was some sort of enchantment. He can't know for a fact, but enchantment would be an easy conclusion to jump to.

I believe the DM has allowed herself to be sucked into the conflict and become a part of the problem, because none of the above is particularly inobvious. Moreover, it is not particularly reasonable to think a player ought to let an attempt by another player to subjugate them pass without consequence. Yet, she deems punishment to be in order.

Player 1: _"You know that potion you just drank? The one I just gave you? It's loaded with poison. Make a Fort save lest you shed this coil mortal!"_
Player 2: _"I rolled a 20. Feeling dizzy, nauseous, and a little bleary-eyed, I decry you as a poisoning cur."_
Player 1: _"Now now, dearest friend, you have no way of knowing that you were poisoned. Perhaps that chicken you had for dinner was a bit undercooked. Salmonella is frighteningly common in the old world, you know. In fact, seeing that your character isn't feeling well, I now proffer another potion for your consumption. Purely out-of-character, I would have you know that it is laden with an even deadlier poison. It is my sincere hope that you perish so I may pilfer your belongings at my leisure. Your character, being oblivious to this, should be a good fellow and quaff it down blithely; to do otherwise would be to reveal yourself as a bad role-player. Chin chin."_
Player 2: _"Having always had a bad feeling about this cretin standing before him, my character concludes that he was poisoned and retribution is in order. I am clearing leather. Roll initiative."_
Player 1: _"Oh, you just HAPPENED to come to that conclusion. That's convenient. Metagaming, that's what that is. You sir, are a bad role-player! Consider yourself denounced."_
DM: _"INDEED! Fooey upon you, you nasty, metagaming little pischer! Had you up-ended that bottle, you'd have earned my esteem. Instead, let me consult the stoic and just folk of ENWorld to devise a fitting punishment."_


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Aug 24, 2011)

Hunh, that's a bit of an overdone example huh Felon? (Who ever exclaims "Fooey upon you" anyways?)

Has it been said whether the wizard cast the spell behind the fighter's back or not? I'd argue that if the wizard cast it at him from right in front of him then yeah he'd certainly have a good shot at figuring out what had happened, but if on the other hand a spell was cast that he didn't see, he might not realize it.


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2011)

SnowleopardVK said:


> Hunh, that's a bit of an overdone example huh Felon? (Who ever exclaims "Fooey upon you" anyways?)



You suggest that my short one-act play is overwrought? And here I left out the chorus of ENWorlders denouncing Player 2 as a munchking, minmaxer, CN bunghole, and a few other choice references to male anatomy.



> Has it been said whether the wizard cast the spell behind the fighter's back or not? I'd argue that if the wizard cast it at him from right in front of him then yeah he'd certainly have a good shot at figuring out what had happened, but if on the other hand a spell was cast that he didn't see, he might not realize it.



A character realizes when he is the target of a failed spell. It is not intended that the lot of fighter players be to walk around as the servile toadies of unscrupulous wizard players.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 24, 2011)

If I were playing with this guy, I'd let him level up with us. Then when I got the opportunity, I'd kill him or let him die. And not bother to bring him back. If he wants to play PK games, I'd play the game with him.


----------



## Felon (Aug 24, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> If I were playing with this guy, I'd let him level up with us. Then when I got the opportunity, I'd kill him or let him die. And not bother to bring him back. If he wants to play PK games, I'd play the game with him.



You have managed to miss the point others have so deftly made, which is that the player in question is not gleefully indulging in "PK", but rather that he's trying to indicate in no uncertain terms that attempts by another player to usurp his will is not going to pass without consequence.

Furthermore, your proposed solution of one-upmanship only serves to reinforce my general feeling that role-playing gamers in general have a minimal-at-best grasp of the basic concepts of conflict resolution. And indeed, the very players who stress role-playing over hack-and-slash seem to have the hardest time handling the distinct personalities that show up at a gaming table.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Aug 24, 2011)

Felon said:


> A character realizes when he is the target of a failed spell. It is not intended that the lot of fighter players be to walk around as the servile toadies of unscrupulous wizard players.




It wasn't a failed spell though. The spell worked, and made him give up the item. I would agree that he would have realized it if the spell had failed, but I'm not so sure about that considering the spell actually worked. That's why I asked whether he saw it being cast or not.


----------



## Walking Dad (Aug 25, 2011)

I'm glad the situation was solved without bloodshed 

Best wishes for the future mother.

I will leave the thread now as it became so long, that new posters don't bother to read it entirely and already solved discussions are started anew.


----------



## Gazra (Aug 25, 2011)

I know this has been resolved, but I would have brought the game to a screeching halt the second the coup de grace happened. From an alignment perspective, murder is a not a CN act. As a DM I would have informed the player that his alignment is now CE until further notice, which would cause all sorts of problems for the party. 

However, as others have pointed out, an in-game solution is not likely to be effective in these situations. Really, this behavior needs to be called out on the spot. Let the player know: this is my game and  like this will not be tolerated. I would have also pointed out to the Wizard that the Charm spell did overstep some boundaries, but reminded the Fighter that he has no business with this item other than it is valuable. Rather than giving him the boot, give him the option: hand over the item to the Wizard or leave the game table. Let him know that if does play nice, a shiny item will have his name on it in the very future.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Aug 26, 2011)

Gazra said:


> I know this has been resolved, but I would have brought the game to a screeching halt the second the coup de grace happened. From an alignment perspective, murder is a not a CN act. As a DM I would have informed the player that his alignment is now CE until further notice, which would cause all sorts of problems for the party.




Did you have Paladins fall from grace in 1st ed D&D if they attacked a sleeping dragon?
Do you have characters go evil if they coup de grace a fallen or paralyzed foe?



Gazra said:


> However, as others have pointed out, an in-game solution is not likely to be effective in these situations. Really, this behavior needs to be called out on the spot. Let the player know: this is my game and  like this will not be tolerated. I would have also pointed out to the Wizard that the Charm spell did overstep some boundaries, but reminded the Fighter that he has no business with this item other than it is valuable. Rather than giving him the boot, give him the option: hand over the item to the Wizard or leave the game table. Let him know that if does play nice, a shiny item will have his name on it in the very future.




If you actually read back you'll find it was, iirc, a Pipe of the Sewers which the character could use.


----------



## Gazra (Aug 26, 2011)

Seeing as how I never played 1st edition, no. And I wouldn't. 

I would also make a distinction between murder and slaying a dragon. Your situation is far too vague to have any sort of gravity regarding alignment. What if the dragon they slew had been terrorizing a town for the last few years?

It's not the coup de grace itself that would cause my reaction. Rather, it would be a player intentionally causing harm to the infrastructure of the game. Both parties are guilty in this situation, but the fighter took it to an unprecedented level where, if the DM allowed it, the action caused irreparable harm. 

Regardless of whether or not he could use it, this player was clearly way outside of any acceptable rules of conduct.


----------



## Felon (Aug 26, 2011)

Gazra said:


> I know this has been resolved, but I would have brought the game to a screeching halt the second the coup de grace happened. From an alignment perspective, murder is a not a CN act. As a DM I would have informed the player that his alignment is now CE until further notice, which would cause all sorts of problems for the party.



Well, causing all sorts of problems for the party via heavy-handed ruling does indeed seem to be the chief purview of many DM's in this thread. 

Murder may be evil, but it's not murder from the character's perspective. A CN character is primarily with doing as he pleases. He lacks a CE's desire to dominate others or inflict harm for pleasure, but his personal freedom takes priority over law and morality. From that perspective, being mind-controlled would represent a very serious violation against his person, and might well merit deadly retaliation. And clearly, the player (not just the character) saw his actions as retaliation, not murder. Retaliation for an assault that promises to be followed up by further assaults. Indeed, killing the offending wizard is exactly what I might expect a CN to do. 



> However, as others have pointed out, an in-game solution is not likely to be effective in these situations. Really, this behavior needs to be called out on the spot. Let the player know: this is my game and  like this will not be tolerated. I would have also pointed out to the Wizard that the Charm spell did overstep some boundaries, but reminded the Fighter that he has no business with this item other than it is valuable. Rather than giving him the boot, give him the option: hand over the item to the Wizard or leave the game table. Let him know that if does play nice, a shiny item will have his name on it in the very future.



Another dominant notion in this thread is apparent disposability of one's fellow gamers. From what I've seen over the last few pages, there must be D&D players crawling out of the woodwork to consider them so easily discarded, because at the first sign of trouble it's either "I get up and leave" or "I boot him". This truly depresses me.

Conflict resolution is a discipline unto itself. I would recommend to anybody playing D&D that they should enrich themselves by doing a little reading on the five basic methods: comfront, compromise, smooth, force, and avoid. Seems most threads of this sort seem to arise because of avoiding, and most replies advocate forcing. Neither is geared towards a win-win outcome.

The OP doesn't indicate by what means the fighter acquired the magic item that the wizard wanted. If the loot distribution method placed the item in the fighter's hands fair and square, then the wizard would be obliged to offer compensation. If there is no loot distribution method, then they need to establish one.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Aug 26, 2011)

Felon said:


> Another dominant notion in this thread is apparent disposability of one's fellow gamers. From what I've seen over the last few pages, there must be D&D players crawling out of the woodwork to consider them so easily discarded, because at the first sign of trouble it's either "I get up and leave" or "I boot him". This truly depresses me.




That's pretty much the general way of thinking all over this place. Post a thread discussing a minor problem you have with a player and ask for solutions other than booting them. It'll be suggested several times anyways.

I wonder where the boot-happy attitude arises from. It took me months to get enough players for my own group. To kick people out over every argument would lead to no players.


----------



## Gazra (Aug 27, 2011)

I never suggested booting him. I suggested giving him the option: work out a compromise or choose not to play. There is a difference. 

I think the fighter should have responded in some way that let the Wizard know he overstepped his boundaries and it won't be tolerated. However, responding to what was a pretty innocuous move with murder is more than a little extreme. Hide his spellbook. Hit him with the flat side of your sword for sub dual damage until he is unconscious and warn him there won't be another warning. These are things that work in character and are more than appropriate. 

I agree with your interpretation of CN, but how does a character of CN alignment function in a group? They give up a little bit of their independence in exchange for a greater sense of security. This is why I don't see murder as an appropriate response. This is not some random person stealing from the fighter; this is a character that he has agreed to work with so that he may achieve greater success for himself.

For all of CN's unpredictability, there is no reason that he would resort to something so extreme when he's already operating outside of the "individualist, first and last" mentality of CN.


----------



## Nytmare (Aug 28, 2011)

I'm getting to this late, but just to play devil's advocate:



Alishea said:


> For example, we had some party discord about loot essentially the fighter (metagamer) wanted to hold on to a magical item that was meant for a caster.




Did he want to hold on to it to punish or upset you as a player, or was he/his character being greedy, and wanted to hold onto the item so that he could sell it?



> The oracle (me) wanted the item.




Did you want it cause you knew that it was put into the loot pile for you, or because your character would have wanted it?

All too often I hear the term "meta-gamer" getting throw around as an insult that boils down to "person X, who isn't playing the game how I want them to play the game."

From that point on, everything can be fixed by the players agreeing ahead of time to make characters who know and like each other and who aren't itching for opportunities to screw each other over.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 28, 2011)

Gazra said:


> what was a pretty innocuous move




Innocuous? It was the equivalent of dumping rohypnol in his drink and robbing him when it took effect. Armed robbery can get you decades in jail.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 29, 2011)

Felon said:


> And indeed, the very players who stress role-playing over hack-and-slash seem to have the hardest time handling the distinct personalities that show up at a gaming table.




Really? I have seen just as many threads on message boards where optimizers, power gamers, and hack and slashers complain about people that stress roleplaying whom they call "drama queens". 

Personally, I have seen both ruin games, because they were too extreme  towards their style for the groups that they were in.

Despite the Kool-Aid WOTC has been pushing since 3e that there is a place for everyone at the table, there are times when play styles are too divergent and people are better off finding a group more suitable or removing the disruptive element.

Then again, I live in an area where gamers are easy to find so I can afford to be selective about the people with whom I game.


----------



## Gazra (Aug 29, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Innocuous? It was the equivalent of dumping rohypnol in his drink and robbing him when it took effect. Armed robbery can get you decades in jail.




We can make analogies all we want, but at no point did the Wizard even threaten the Fighter's life. The caster certainly overstepped some boundaries, but, given that they're adventuring together, this really merited an ego-check in the form of some retaliation that shows the Fighter will not tolerate this behavior, but not to the extent that it would disrupt the game as much as it did.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 29, 2011)

I'm sorry if this was covered already, but I have no intention of reading this entire thread. 

Did anyone suggest talking to the player and letting them know that meta-gaming has become a problem? If the problem continues, after you have spoken to then about it, maybe it's time for a new player?

I admit I never like using the word _punish_ when talking about a game with friends. And wouldn't punishing their actions in-game just be furthering the meta-game, propagated by the DM?


----------

