GM Workshop

A community-created and maintained place for Game Masters of all systems to bounce ideas around. It's a place for inspiration and sharing tips.


How do you Handle Meta Gamers?

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TanaNari View Post
I have a tendency to incidentally murder my metagamers.

Not out of active maliciousness... but because they do incredibly stupid, suicidal things, and then act surprised when their characters die because of their suicidal stupidity. Always with the "I didn't think you'd actually kill us" excuses afterwards.

Examples include, but are not limited to, the following...

Suggested Listening while you read.

1- Using a magical grenade on the enemy... which had currently surrounded them... by dropping it at their own feet.

2- Leaving a wounded and unconscious ally in the car outside while the rest of the team went to explore the Evil Spooky Place. A character that they wounded as part of the Magic Grenade incident mentioned above. Total Player Kill. Though I did show some mercy and let someone else come to rescue the one left in the vehicle- wasn't her fault everyone else blew her up and left her in the truck to die.

3- Trespass on private property. Find presumed owner of property aiming shotgun on his face. Instead of doing as told and leaving, choose to walk toward said farmer while talking. Get shot (and it was a crit, no less- not that a crit was actually necessary- world of darkness game, where guns actually mean something). Act like it's the GM's fault.

4- Start completely unnecessary fight with wild animals (they were basically alien hippos) which had showed no interest in your characters and were, in fact, digging through the dirt for roots to eat. Better yet, engage the large well-armored animals in melee combat. TPK.

... One of the characters who did this was a D&D Ranger.

5- Same campaign, different characters. Trapped in a pit that's been dug into what is essentially limestone. Player starts digging hole into wall. Nobody else thinks to stop him. He gets upset when this causes a wall to collapse on top of them. THEY actually survived (D&D, a cave-in is totally survivable), but the epic bitch-fest (and the fact that the other half of the party killed themselves by starting unnecessary fights) killed the game.

6- Use superpowers to break into a supertech military base. Get discovered because they decided to explode a wall to break into a room, instead of... anything else... they didn't even check the door to see if it was unlocked because "it's probably got an alarm". It was an internal door.

7- Fight their way out- they're doing okay in the corridors, so they decide to go into the wide open area (so, y'know, they can fight all of them at once instead of using a chokepoint).

8- Steal an attack helicopter to escape. ... Did I mention not a single one of them had any skill in flying? As a matter of fact, only one of them knew how to drive. Long story short, their escape was blown out of the sky before it got off the ground.

9- Let's not even count the times when someone tried to god-mod the NPCs to do whatever they wanted, or otherwise assumed that they get to do whatever they want in non-combat scenarios just because they're the PCs.

......

And every last time, at least one player acts like it's *my* fault that they got themselves killed, arrested for crimes ranging from theft to sexual assault, or otherwise blocked off all possibility of advancing their goals because they've earned a reputation as potentially schizophrenic psychopaths.

......

So, yeah, that's been *my* experience with metagamers.

Frankly, if I had a player come along whose only crime was to use OOC knowledge to his advantage, I would welcome him. If only because that level of intelligence and planning would be a refreshing change of pace to the type I usually get saddled with.
Wasn't metagaming supposed to prevent acting stipid decisions, not the other way around?
Also, I really liked your choice of music!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakootoko View Post
I have to agree with TanaNari about the grenade. It's metagaming to think "I have enough hit points. I'll survive this grenade and they won't." But it's a different kind of metagaming than most of us have been thinking of: it's working the rules instead of acting like a real person would act.
...oh, that?
I find that such types tend to self-punish themselves. Just like TanaNari said, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirAntoine View Post
It would be one thing if the DM meant to be focused on one particular style. But the other players need to be able to enjoy the game how they enjoy playing in general.

I am not saying there couldn't be a cause for a disagreement, or an argument. I am just saying the DM should try to host all the players individually.
I disagree.
In my book, if the players don't enjoy the style of gaming that's on offer, they're free to leave or adapt. Requiring everyone else to accommodate them seems like too much entitlement to me. And I deal with entitled players in two ways only, the second being a polite, but frank conversation.
It's especially bad if it raises the mental strain for the Referee. Because if you make his or her strain too much, there's no game for anyone.
Now, what they totally should be able to expect, is being notified of the kind of game that's on offer, so they could make an informed decision whether to apply.
(Should be able to expect it, however, doesn't mean they can rely on it. For some reason, "notify your players what kind of game you're running" isn't part of many GMing sections, so you tend to learn it with experience).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
Even if we do include stupid actions in our definition of metagaming, they tend functionally to be different to the sorts of use-OoC-knowledge-to-your-advantage things most commonly thought of as metagaming, such as exploiting a monster's weakness you shouldn't be aware of, etc.
The only difference I can see is level of skill. Whether their assumptions are accurate or not, they're still using "knowledge" of the meta to take actions that their characters would have no business taking.

Which is the definition of metagaming, is it not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
Mmm... is working the rules instead of acting like a "real" person inappropriate or not?
I didn't say 'inappropriate', I said 'metagaming'. And also stupid. But this is a discussion about metagaming and how you handle it. Relative appropriateness or intelligence changes nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsenRG View Post
Wasn't metagaming supposed to prevent acting stipid decisions, not the other way around?
Apparently not always.

Quote:
Also, I really liked your choice of music!
Best part is, it was paid for by an actual government agency. Best. Marketing. Ever.

Quote:
In my book, if the players don't enjoy the style of gaming that's on offer, they're free to leave or adapt. Requiring everyone else to accommodate them seems like too much entitlement to me. And I deal with entitled players in two ways only, the second being a polite, but frank conversation.
That's my policy. I make it clear what sort of game I'm running right from the onset- if someone doesn't like it, they're free to apply to one of the many other games, and leave my game to those who want to play it.

It's a rule I live by, too. I can't begin to guess the number of games that sounded interesting at first, but then I read the details and decided it wasn't for me. At least two or three per week for the last (huh, I've been here...) six years. Sometimes more.


Quote:
Now, what they totally should be able to expect, is being notified of the kind of game that's on offer, so they could make an informed decision whether to apply.

(Should be able to expect it, however, doesn't mean they can rely on it. For some reason, "notify your players what kind of game you're running" isn't part of many GMing sections, so you tend to learn it with experience).
That's also another thing I do. I'm right upfront with the general tone and feel of the setting. ... Funny thing is, I always include phrases which either are, or mean, "actions have consequences" and "poor choices may be lethal."

Maybe I'm too subtle and the next game should have a label which reads "I kill dumb characters."

But... then again, that'd probably just drive good players off, while attracting the rest, since...

Incompetent people think they're amazing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TanaNari View Post
Apparently not always.
Obviously.

Quote:
Best part is, it was paid for by an actual government agency. Best. Marketing. Ever.
We need more smart gouvernment agencies! (And yes, you need them, too).

Quote:
That's my policy. I make it clear what sort of game I'm running right from the onset- if someone doesn't like it, they're free to apply to one of the many other games, and leave my game to those who want to play it.

It's a rule I live by, too. I can't begin to guess the number of games that sounded interesting at first, but then I read the details and decided it wasn't for me. At least two or three per week for the last (huh, I've been here...) six years. Sometimes more.

That's also another thing I do. I'm right upfront with the general tone and feel of the setting. ... Funny thing is, I always include phrases which either are, or mean, "actions have consequences" and "poor choices may be lethal."
Clear enough, if you ask me.
I should add "if all you do is fight, most competent NPCs will run circles around you and use you to his goals, which might not coincide with those of the party".

Quote:
Maybe I'm too subtle and the next game should have a label which reads "I kill dumb characters."
Now, that would be...I hate using the word, but it'd be awesome!

Quote:
But... then again, that'd probably just drive good players off, while attracting the rest, since...

Incompetent people think they're amazing.
Yes, many of them do (but let's not get political)!
But it would still be very fun to watch the reactions. Wouldn't it be worth it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TanaNari View Post
I didn't say 'inappropriate', I said 'metagaming'. And also stupid. But this is a discussion about metagaming and how you handle it. Relative appropriateness or intelligence changes nothing.
And what does that have to do with the price of fish? I didn't say you said "inappropriate" - firstly, that was in response to hakootoko's remarks (which I tried to indicate by writing it under a quote from hakootoko) and, secondly, that was a legitimate question - I can see an argument that says that, yes, it is inappropriate, it's just that if you follow that line of thinking then blame has to rest with the system for not being realistic enough, which is an odd place to end up.

Who didn't say "inappropriate", either. And we were both talking about the same subject, so the distinction is irrelevant.

And there are plenty of ways to justify eating a grenade and then keep on walking... high tier battle armor and/or magical powers, as two of many options. Nobody would think twice if Iron Man tanked a grenade. Or Superman. Or an M1 Abrams for a non-fictional example. So you can break physics over your knee without breaking character.

But this was not such an example, they did not have superhuman durability (nor did they have particularly good armor if they even had armor to begin with) as evidenced by the explosion leaving one of the characters unconscious and dying from injuries.

Communication is key. By agreeing on what type of game it's going to be beforehand, you and the players enter into a social contract. Is it dark shades or pink mohawks? "A Clockwork Orange" violence or Looney Tunes violence? Deviations from what has been agreed on tend to spoil the game for everyone.


To sum it up:

Deal with IC issues IC. Character does something stupid (like slap a king as a 1st-level character), character suffers logical consequences as determined by the setting and game type.

Deal with OOC issues OOC. Player becomes disruptive or argumentative, find a mutual solution or find a replacement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
I can see an argument that says that, yes, it is inappropriate, it's just that if you follow that line of thinking then blame has to rest with the system for not being realistic enough, which is an odd place to end up.
Why would that be odd? Many systems suffer from this problem, and then cause issues for GMs and players that expect realistic results.
Like, you know, grenades actually hurting people. And wounds deteriorating over time if left untreated, as in the example.
I had the same issue as a player, when I hurt a stronger NPC and went running from him for a couple hours, then found out that his condition hasn't actually worsened, because it wasn't part of the system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TanaNari View Post
Suggested Listening while you read.
On a side note, [background information] advert was created to VicRail (local urban train operator) to reduce rail fatalities. All train drivers, worldwide, have killed at least one person during their career. Of the last four 'dumb ways', I have seen two and been in the carriage hit by a car doing one of them. [/background information].

Also, best t-shirt ever:

Have to remember that tomorrow, as playing an 8 hour Battle Interactive (with that campaign...)

That song made me laugh way more than it is decent. Like it literally made me joyous with glee to the point where I feel compelled to share that with you in hopes that some joy will rub off on you as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southernskies View Post
On a side note, [background information] advert was created to VicRail (local urban train operator) to reduce rail fatalities. All train drivers, worldwide, have killed at least one person during their career. Of the last four 'dumb ways', I have seen two and been in the carriage hit by a car doing one of them. [/background information]
I've got four relatively close relatives who died in car vs train encounters. The cars lost every time.

Though, really, I think alcohol deserves most of the blame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple View Post
I feel compelled to share that with you in hopes that some joy will rub off on you as well.
This week in out-of-context quotes.







 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2018-04-20 09:00:26am local time
Myth-Weavers Status