Did I screw this player over?

[Zerter]

The background
We have a campaign that has been running 16 weeks now, 8 hour sessions. I have a player that had been continiously challenging NPCs to duels with as stake their items. He also at one point killed a key NPC (because he thought he was annoying) to take all his items. For that last one he faced heavy in-game consequences, but that is not really relevant.

Two sessions ago the PC challenged a Monk NPC/reserve PC that had been around for a while and lost. As a result he was without items, carrying a lot at that point as the result of the previous duels and such. One session ago he gained a lot of gold, than gambled it all to double it putting him over his WBL. The Monk NPC also added to his - now - very considerable gear as a result of another PC's actions. I informed the PC that he could spend the gold inbetween that session and the one that took place today. I also levelled the Monk and graded his gear up appropiatly.

What happened today
We were sitting around the table and I put the Monk's old sheet on top of the papers I had with me. I started the game, we did some stuff, 30 minutes in he challenges the Monk. I ask him if he is sure, he asks me if I am going to make any changes. I tell him I will leave the Monk's sheet as it is. At first he is reluctant to fight for anything but honor, eventually he raises the stake to all his items vs. all those carried by the Monk. At that point I take the sheet on top, put it aside and take out the real Monk sheet from my papers. Laughter breaks out, but the PC in question is not happy.

Eventually the Monk accidently kills him, but that is all in the game. Any way, he did not make a big deal out of it but said it was unfair for me to use another sheet. I told him he should not be meta-gaming. We had a pleasant session with his back-up character.

The question
The question is, was the move with the hidden sheet screwing him over or not? My logic was that he should not be looking and not taking the information in account if he does look. The other players also seemed to think it was okay. But maybe there is some angle to this I am missing. The Monk levelling and buying gear was in line with how we as a group do things if anyone is wondering. I should also point that the PC had levelled and had taken abilities and bought items specifically to combat the Monk.

[Ravenica]

you meta'd better than him, hardly a screw over and you didn't intentionally try to kill him so...

No you didn't screw him over.

[dascarletm]

It would depend I think. If the character would of been able to see his better gear in game, then maybe. If you described to him what he was wearing (assuming his gear was visible/obvious) and it was reflective of his actual load-out, then no not really.

I would however not do this myself, and just keep the sheet always hidden. Don't want trust issues to be a problem.

[ArcturusV]

Well, down to particulars that obviously should have come into play.

It's "meta-gaming" if he was looking at the monk's old sheet, using OOC information for IC actions.

However it could have also been entirely In Game, and could have been a screw job based on how you did it. If you described the monk as wearing all his old gear, etc. Then yes, this is a screw job. It's not like Monks have any sort of shapechanging/disguise ability to speak of. So whatever gear he had on was probably clearly visible.

So it comes down to things like: Did you describe the monk in question? Or did you just say "oh, same old monk you always knew" and had the old sheet out. The latter is pretty screwy.

[RFLS]

...and you're asking if you're in the wrong? Jeez. I'd kick that player out. He's cheating by looking at your notes and he's playing an utter asshat of a character with no regard for the universe.

I'm not recommending you kick him if he's a friend, but at the very least, it needs to be explained that he can't be pulling that crap.

[Zerter]

I mentioned in passing that he was wearing a robe, which was the only new thing (everything else was either not visible or an upgrade of previous items). It was not like I pointed out his shining new robe though, it was more like, 'You see the Monk, wearing a robe.'


...and you're asking if you're in the wrong? Jeez. I'd kick that player out. He's cheating by looking at your notes and he's playing an utter asshat of a character with no regard for the universe.

I'm not recommending you kick him if he's a friend, but at the very least, it needs to be explained that he can't be pulling that crap.

When he killed the key NPC mentioned before, he triggered a curse that had him (literally) re-roll his character totally random. He knew he had the curse by the way. From stats, to classes, to feats, to race, to gender, to skills, to age category. We are currently playing gestalt and he ended up with an NG alchemist/aegis venerable human that had high intelligence (lucky bastard ended with a somewhat playable character). His dueling habits continued and the Monk eventually killed him for it.

My point is, when he messes with the universe, the universe messes back, which makes it reasonably workable. He is in fact a good friend of mine and I accept that he plays the way he does and he accepts it does not always work out for him. I think his PCs last about an average of four sessions over the past three years. Some of the universe messing with him does get through... a little bit :smallwink:.

[Ravenica]

if he didn't take the ingame time to check for new gear then it's certainly not a screw. considering this character beat him before it shouldn't have come as a suprise that he got beaten again.

[scurv]

It could be perceived as a breach of trust. And it could verywell be only in your own head and not a concern for the player.

If you were using the stats and skills from the old sheet while interacting with him. Then he may very well of had a chance to see though the performance of the monk with interaction with him. Such as the new gear the monk had. I only know 3.5 via nwn2 and ddo So my understanding of it is imperfect. But the player in question I could legitimately see having a significant bonus to spot new gear, Considering that he covets such gear based on his own actions.

Was the player playing a jerk, Yes.
Did the DM overlook informing the pc of some things that he should of known, Yes.

[scurv]

...and you're asking if you're in the wrong? Jeez. I'd kick that player out. He's cheating by looking at your notes and he's playing an utter asshat of a character with no regard for the universe.

I'm not recommending you kick him if he's a friend, but at the very least, it needs to be explained that he can't be pulling that crap.



The background

What happened today
We were sitting around the table and I put the Monk's old sheet on top of the papers I had with me. I started the game, we did some stuff, 30 minutes in he challenges the Monk. I ask him if he is sure, he asks me if I am going to make any changes. I tell him I will leave the Monk's sheet as it is. At first he is reluctant to fight for anything but honor, eventually he raises the stake to all his items vs. all those carried by the Monk. At that point I take the sheet on top, put it aside and take out the real Monk sheet from my papers. Laughter breaks out, but the PC in question is not happy.

.




From what I read that player was a very good sport at the change of char sheet. Even when the player was told by the DM that the monk sheet would remain as it was and the DM then proceeded to change sheets. Quite frankly If i was in that players position i would finish the session and find something else to do with that chunk of time if that was habitual.

<<edit to insert quote>>
Although I have to ask, If he is at first reluctant to fight for anything but honor, Then he is reassured by the DM that no changes will be made to the monk and then the DM promptly changes char sheets I now have a slew of questions that would not be polite to ask.

[R_G_R]

I think you didn't. Perhaps you shouldn't have done the sheet thing just to fool him but if the player learned something through your ruse, something other than "I will not try to kill all the npc's":smallwink:, then I think no harm was done.

[NotScaryBats]

I don't think you did anything wrong. The atmosphere you described for your game is a bit different that what I'm used to, but that isn't necessarily always a bad thing.

Sounds like a mature and fair solution to the potential issue, too, with the nice end of the session with a backup pc and no hard feelings.

[Zerter]

Although I have to ask, If he is at first reluctant to fight for anything but honor, Then he is reassured by the DM that no changes will be made to the monk and then the DM promptly changes char sheets I now have a slew of questions that would not be polite to ask.

To be clear, I said no changes would be made to the sheet of the Monk (he was worried I would literally change stuff on the spot). I did not say which sheet was the Monk's.

[scurv]

To be clear, I said no changes would be made to the sheet of the Monk (he was worried I would literally change stuff on the spot). I did not say which sheet was the Monk's.

I think everyone at the table knew what sheets was the monks. You got your player with a cheep trick, And you came here asking if you screwed that player over. So I will ask you this, How badly do you need to believe what you just said to feel right about the situation?

[KillianHawkeye]

That's just a different kind of DM screen! (Protip: get a REAL DM screen so you don't have to resort to this kind of thing to protect your game notes in the future.)

Where I come from, looking at the DM's notes is considered cheating.

[Deophaun]

I think everyone at the table knew what sheets was the monks.
No, they only thought they knew. The DM had, previously, upgraded the monk's sheet. The sheet on top? That was no longer the monk's sheet. While certainly tricksy on the DM's part to bring along a sheet that had no more relevance to the game, it's still doesn't make him a liar, only a lawyer. If you're a player and you aren't listening carefully to what the DM is and is not saying, you are going to be taken for a ride by the very first devil your character meets.

How badly do you need to believe what you just said to feel right about the situation?
Hopefully not much.

Let's look at this from an in-game perspective. You have a known associate who goes about challenging people to duels to take their stuff. This associate has also challenged you before (and lost). After a few adventures, you get some money to upgrade your equipment. Do you...

A) Publicly display said equipment, so your known associate knows what shinies you have recently acquired or
B) Conceal your new equipment beneath your new robe, and give you associate enough rope to hang himself?

I know what I'd choose.

[scurv]

I'm sorry, But how in a explicitly detailed way was the player meta gaming?

[Ravenica]

How is reading the GM's notes in any way not explicit metagaming?

[Krobar]

No. You're fine. Don't sweat it. If he was looking at that sheet to help him decide, as a player, what he was going to do, he was in the wrong. If he wasn't looking at the sheet ... well, you roll the dice and take your chances. A guy like that always runs into someone that can take him eventually.

[Deophaun]

I'm sorry, But how in a explicitly detailed way was the player meta gaming?
Right here...

At that point I take the sheet on top, put it aside and take out the real Monk sheet from my papers. Laughter breaks out, but the PC in question is not happy.
See where his attitude changes the instant he realizes that the top sheet is not the monk's sheet? See where he's paying attention to a piece of paper that doesn't exist in-game, and not to the description of the monk wearing a robe that he never wore before? That's metagaming.

[Boci]

I'm going to say you probably didn't do anything that wrong, BUT:

There are two messages that can be taken away from this session:

1. How do you like a taste of your own medicine? Can we agree now that metagaming is bad and not do it anymore.

2. See, I can metagame too. Feel free to metagame, I just hope you can do it better than me.

You need to decide which message you were trying to send, and then make sure that was the message the player, and indeed the whole group, recieved.

[RedDragons]

“Don’t be cocky. Don’t be flashy. There’s always someone better than you.” Tony Hsieh, co-founder, Zappos

[Kyberwulf]

I feel this is a clear cut case of entrapment, but I like it.

There is nothing wrong with what you did. As a Dm, your free to use whatever stats that is on any piece of paper you write down. Even your role to ignore whatever is written down, so you can improvise better. It's his fault for reading your notes, and trying to get an advantage over the situation. As a Dm, it's perfectly fine to leave notes and Stats laying around. It is the Dm's right to ignore anything. As long as that stuff stays on his side of the screen, and hasn't really crossed over into the game world that it's all malleable.

[scurv]

Right here...

See where his attitude changes the instant he realizes that the top sheet is not the monk's sheet? See where he's paying attention to a piece of paper that doesn't exist in-game, and not to the description of the monk wearing a robe that he never wore before? That's metagaming.

Being upset after your DM, gave his word, After reassuring the player that there would be no on the fly changes to the char (And I would love to have the rest of the dialogue) And then the DM proceeds to pull a street con on the player is a player who has every right to be upset.

Having ninja char sheets is not illegal, But a fair DM would of given the player his chances at rolls to detect the changes.

Add to that The bit of dialogue about the DM reassuring the player that there will be no on the fly changes, What the hell prompts a dialogue like that? There is some significant information that we are not being told and I suspect that has much to do with why this DM is worried that he might of screwed his player.

And I do not see the player using ingame knowlage that his char did not have. The player was upset at his DM pulling a few cheep tricks on him based on the information provided.

[Kyberwulf]

That is the point of this. He gave his word. It's not the Dm's fault the player broke Gaming etiquette and read the Dm's Notes. The Dm isn't under any obligation to use any notes, just because the players Look at them.

[Waspinator]

It's not the DM's fault that the guy looked at the wrong notes while he was cheating.

[Eman Resu]

he lost to a Monk?

[gooddragon1]

You lied to him. I personally don't care if he was metagaming because you pulled a bait and switch. In my opinion you should have just said "you have no idea what his stats are" instead of luring him into a fight he had no chance of winning. He made reasonable expectations of a similar conflict based on what you'd said rather than surmising an improvement of his enemy from uncertain knowledge. It's not a matter of metagaming on his part, it's a matter of you purposefully misleading him with false information rather than allowing him to think out the situation normally. Him metagaming would be if he had suddenly known the entire stats of your NPC with a new character despite never having met him. If you hadn't said anything at all and not "lured" him into the fight there wouldn't be a problem imo but you did and so there is (imo).

EDIT: I'd also like to note that abusing a players trust is one of the fastest ways for them to stop playing in your games. So if that's what you wanted then you might have been successful.

EDIT2: I don't like players or DM's who are particularly hotheaded but I'm willing to co-exist with them. My actions would have been:
-"You know that he's beaten you and may expect to fight you again, expect improvements in his gear but I won't be showing you his stats"
-The NPC refuses to duel with you
-The city guard attempts to arrest you for killing the NPC
-You kill the city guard and attract the attention of the kingdom
-The city guard chases you out of the city and places a bounty for your capture or killing (adventuring in certain places may be much more difficult for you).
-The city guard regards you as one of the suspects in the murder of this NPC
-etc.

[Kyberwulf]

This isn't an abuse of the Players trust. This is an abuse of the players will to cheat. There is a difference. Next time the player might not take it upon himself to try cheat to win.

[Ravenica]

he lost to a Monk?

I loled :smallbiggrin:

[gooddragon1]

This isn't an abuse of the Players trust. This is an abuse of the players will to cheat. There is a difference. Next time the player might not take it upon himself to try cheat to win.

Don't give them that option and it won't be a problem. In other words, don't show them the character sheet at all. Also, personally, I don't care for DM's who condone this sort of behavior. It breeds animosity between DM's and players.

[Ravenica]

Don't give them that option and it won't be a problem. In other words, don't show them the character sheet at all. Also, personally, I don't care for DM's who condone this sort of behavior. It breeds animosity between DM's and players.


He didn't show him the character sheet, in fact he took pains to conceal it. The player violated trust

[Deophaun]

Being upset after your DM, gave his word, After reassuring the player that there would be no on the fly changes to the char
Right, he promised there would be no on the fly changes. And sure enough, there were no on the fly changes. Now, if the DM decided to use the old, irrelevent character sheet? That would have been an on the fly change. Naturally, you would be outraged by such lying.

Having ninja char sheets is not illegal, But a fair DM would of given the player his chances at rolls to detect the changes.
He did, when he indicated the monk was wearing a robe. The player disregarded that in favor of a sheet of paper.

Add to that The bit of dialogue about the DM reassuring the player that there will be no on the fly changes, What the hell prompts a dialogue like that?
Any number of trivial things, including possibly what the OP had for breakfast that morning.

And I do not see the player using ingame knowlage that his char did not have.
Ah, so the character knew that there existed a sheet of paper that fully encapsulated the monk's abilities? The character knew that this monk was run by something called a "dungeon master?" And the character knew that this dungeon master would not make any on the fly changes to the monk? And the character knew that the sheet of paper the monk ran off of during their last battle was sitting at the top of this dungeon master's documents? That's all character knowledge? Which knowledge skill would he find that information under?

[Ehra]

Having ninja char sheets is not illegal, But a fair DM would of given the player his chances at rolls to detect the changes.


I mentioned in passing that he was wearing a robe, which was the only new thing (everything else was either not visible or an upgrade of previous items). It was not like I pointed out his shining new robe though, it was more like, 'You see the Monk, wearing a robe.'


The Monk was wearing a robe that wasn't there before and the players were flat out told this; that right there should tell any player that the Monk does not have the same setup they did previously and that the old character sheet is, in fact, outdated. If they still choose to make ingame decisions based on this out of game information, despite the fact that the ingame they were just given is contrary to the out of game information they thought they had, then they really have no one to blame but themselves.

I don't know how you can claim that the player wasn't trying to use out of game knowledge and that this was just a DM trick, when the "trick" wouldn't even matter at all if the player wasn't trying to use out of game knowledge in the first place. If which character sheet the DM uses affects the player's decision then they are factually letting out of game information influence ingame decisions.

[gooddragon1]

He didn't show him the character sheet, in fact he took pains to conceal it. The player violated trust

Just read his posts, that's not mentioned anywhere.


At that point I take the sheet on top, put it aside and take out the real Monk sheet from my papers.


To be clear, I said no changes would be made to the sheet of the Monk (he was worried I would literally change stuff on the spot). I did not say which sheet was the Monk's.

If he had read the sheet he'd know the one on top wasn't for the monk.

He did not read the sheet. We have a case of bait and switch/DM violating player's trust.

I do feel the player should receive his karma but deception out of character shows actions as petty as that of a metagaming player which the DM should be above doing.

[Shining Wrath]

Any player who looks at the DM's private notes, unless you routinely share things like that, is asking for "rocks fall, only YOU die". You were gentle.

[gooddragon1]

Any player who looks at the DM's private notes, unless you routinely share things like that, is asking for "rocks fall, only YOU die". You were gentle.

Tbh, I'd prefer rocks fall over what the DM did (because that's less petty than the violation of trust that occurred). Though note my above post as to why he didn't look at the notes.

[Deophaun]

Tbh, I'd prefer rocks fall over what the DM did (because that's less petty than the violation of trust that occurred). Though read my previous post and note the impossibility of what you just said applying to the player.
I read your previous post, and I note the impossibility of you having read the thread.

We were sitting around the table and I put the Monk's old sheet on top of the papers I had with me.

[Mutant Sheep]

I thought the top sheet was Thr Monk, it was just the monk of last session? I put the blame on the player, because seriously stop trying to duel everyone. Somethign as simple as the monk getting better equipment and the DM putting the old char sheet on top of his DM notepile is not screwing anyone over. It is a backup PC getting better gear and not letting the "must duel everyone" guy know about it beyond "i now have a robe".

[gooddragon1]

I read your previous post, and I note the impossibility of you having read the thread.

Yep, i missed that. He looked at DM notes and deserved a death. But not one that involves breaching trust like that. Unless two wrongs do make a right.

[Kyberwulf]

That's the point. He didn't show him the character sheet. He left it out, in an area the player knows he isn't suppose to be looking. If the Player made the decision based on that, it's the players fault.

[scurv]

The Monk was wearing a robe that wasn't there before and the players were flat out told this; that right there should tell any player that the Monk does not have the same setup they did previously and that the old character sheet is, in fact, outdated. If they still choose to make ingame decisions based on this out of game information, despite the fact that the ingame they were just given is contrary to the out of game information they thought they had, then they really have no one to blame but themselves.

An item change can quite often be done with 10 seconds of pen time. But At this point I have to ask this, What did the DMPC monk have access to buy. Was it handled in a fair and just manor? Are there other actions on the DM's part that cause me to doubt this? But quite frankly if the player dualed the monk once, Even with a single level he should of known quite well what to expect.

But I am going to say this bluntly. There has been testimony enhancement. Much of what was said by the DM begs many questions as to why his player is afraid of the monk being augmented on the fly. And the DM's justifier for his players concern is that the player is meta gaming due to being upset?

[Ravenica]

An item change can quite often be done with 10 seconds of pen time. But At this point I have to ask this, What did the DMPC monk have access to buy. Was it handled in a fair and just manor? Are there other actions on the DM's part that cause me to doubt this? But quite frankly if the player dualed the monk once, Even with a single level he should of known quite well what to expect.

But I am going to say this bluntly. There has been testimony enhancement. Much of what was said by the DM begs many questions as to why his player is afraid of the monk being augmented on the fly. And the DM's justifier for his players concern is that the player is meta gaming due to being upset?

now you're just being silly. It's a dmpc all of a sudden? When did npc's have to worry about item availability?

Let's not forget that the aliens may have used their dice beams to throw off the rolls too!

[gooddragon1]

That's the point. He didn't show him the character sheet. He left it out, in an area the player knows he isn't suppose to be looking. If the Player made the decision based on that, it's the players fault.

And my point is that DM's should be above actions like this. Don't do trust violations as a way to "trick the player" and "teach them a lesson". That's using petty behavior. It breeds animosity between players and DM's.

If you lay down with the dogs expect to get up with fleas.

[Boci]

If he had read the sheet he'd know the one on top wasn't for the monk.

He did not read the sheet.

But if the player didn't read the sheet, then what did the DM do wrong? The players challanged a PC and the DM their sheet out.

[Ravenica]

And my point is that DM's should be above actions like this. Don't do trust violations as a way to "trick the player" and "teach them a lesson". That's using petty behavior.

It's not entrapment unless you make the offer

[Ehra]

An item change can quite often be done with 10 seconds of pen time. But At this point I have to ask this, What did the DMPC monk have access to buy.

The purchases were made between sessions, at the same time the players did:


One session ago he gained a lot of gold, than gambled it all to double it putting him over his WBL. The Monk NPC also added to his - now - very considerable gear as a result of another PC's actions. I informed the PC that he could spend the gold inbetween that session and the one that took place today. I also levelled the Monk and graded his gear up appropiatly.


Not really going to reply to the rest of your post, since it consists of a bunch of "what if the OP is lying about what happened? Then he'd be totally in the wrong, wouldn't he?"

[Waspinator]

So what, are DMs supposed to destroy all out-of-date notes so that players sneaking glances at them won't be misled?

[scurv]

To be clear, I said no changes would be made to the sheet of the Monk (he was worried I would literally change stuff on the spot). I did not say which sheet was the Monk's.

Why would this player be worried about this? I would LOVE to know.

[gooddragon1]

It's not entrapment unless you make the offer

You know that lawful evil uses technicalities like this to justify doing petty things? Is it really mature to return malicious acts in kind? Do you really think that won't drive a wedge between players and DM's?


So what, are DMs supposed to destroy all out-of-date notes so that players sneaking glances at them won't be misled?

No, if they do this then rocks fall. But don't do petty stuff like bait and switch. Just punish them straight up until they get the point but don't stoop to cruelty.

[Mutant Sheep]

The player was afraid of the monk being changed on the fly because he probably knows that trying to beat every NPC that comes up might be ticking off the DM. The monk having had an updated char sheet since before the session began is not a on the fly change, and the PC was not forced into dueling this monk. He decided to duel this guy thinking that the sheet from last session was still in play, but his updated sheet gets to be there. Him not knowing what the monk had, which might not even have been in preparation for dueling him (this monk accompanies the party), is perfectly fine. The DM doesn't need to share the DMPC char sheet, and assuming that it wont change and betting your life on it is not smart.

[Boci]

Why would this player be worried about this? I would LOVE to know.

Because of their play style up until then?


No, if they do this then rocks fall. But don't do petty stuff like bait and switch. Just punish them straight up until they get the point but don't stoop to cruelty.

Its a bait and switch that requires the player to cheat, otherwise it won't be a disadvantage to them. That makes it less problomatic to me.

[Ehra]

Why would this player be worried about this? I would LOVE to know.

Because they're metagaming and intending to make decisions based off of information on a character sheet rather than information presented ingame?

[gooddragon1]

Because of their play style up until then?



Its a bait and switch that requires the player to cheat, otherwise it won't be a disadvantage to them. That makes it less problomatic to me.

If you know they're cheating then be direct about the punishment so that less mockery is involved. Mockery is all fun and games until it happens to you.

It's so easy to label someone else as something else and then to do cruel things to them when you forget that you wouldn't like that to happen to you.

[Ravenica]

You know that lawful evil uses technicalities like this to justify doing petty things? Is it really mature to return malicious acts in kind?
I know that lawful evil is a fictional morality and has no baring on any real discussion of a metagame screw.

The DM took precautions to protect his notes. If the player had not metagamed he would not have felt "screwed". There was no implied or even likely malicious act from either party.



Do you really think that won't drive a wedge between players and DM's?

LOL are you kidding? How long have you been playing? We are over 30 years of abusive dm history and the players keep coming back, the only potential social implications are for that specific player and his DM of which it was already stated in the original post did not escalate beyond a single comment and everyone continued playing and lived happily ever after. Pretty sure we're safe bro.

[Boci]

If you know they're cheating then be direct about the punishment so that less mockery is involved.

That's not an automatically better solution. It gives the player a chance to deny it, and waht if the Dm wasn't sure themselves?

[scurv]

You know, When I see things like that earler statement. I become aware that there is much that is not being said. Now let us look at the name of this thread?


Re: Did I screw this player over?

So a little math here, We got a player who has a Fear about capricious upgrades to a DMPC that he is about to dual, that is told to us by the DM of the session who is worried that he might of screwed over his own player. Who then pulled a bait and switch....Now understand I am not saying the player did not do some D-bag actions

But I am saying that there is enough empty spaces and questionable actions on the DM's part to say "Yes you might of screwed over the player" But relax it happens, Games are nice that way you can learn stuff that would kill you in the real world.

As a note Deophaun You can tell quite a bit about someone by what bait they take.

[Ehra]

If you know they're cheating then be direct about the punishment so that less mockery is involved. Mockery is all fun and games until it happens to you.

Except it wasn't punishment, it was playing the game. Things don't always go the way players think they will. Unless you're going to argue that anytime a player expects one thing to happen but something else happens instead is an unfair punishment. Keeping in mind that the information provided ingame suggested that what the player was expecting to happen was, in fact, not going to happen. The more I read the OP, the more it's just a case of the player screwing them self over.

This is akin to a player getting upset because the monster they're fighting has abilities that differ from the stats in the bestiary and they were basing their entire strategy on their knowledge of the monster's stat block, despite previous ingame knowledge suggesting that the bestiary's stat block isn't an entirely accurate description of what they'll face ingame.

[Logic]

If he had read the sheet he'd know the one on top wasn't for the monk.

He did not read the sheet. We have a case of bait and switch/DM violating player's trust.

I do feel the player should receive his karma but deception out of character shows actions as petty as that of a metagaming player which the DM should be above doing.

The bait and switch holds true if the DM is trying to get the player to attack him. The DM making changes to the monk makes sense especially from an in-universe point of view. The player's character would presumably know that the monk had upgraded his previous gear, especially when it was worth a great deal of gold, and the monk appeared to be in at least one new item.

Using an old character sheet (that had some relevance to the game prior) as a cover sheet for actual DM notes seems appropriate. And when the DM specifically says that no on-the-fly changes are to be made, the player can trust the word of the DM or not. He had a big clue when the DM described the monk (a foe the player had faced before AND lost to) in a manner that contradicted the sheet the player can see (and deliberately used to meta-game his decision to challenge the monk to a duel. If this part isn't terribly clear, see the sentence where the player was unsure of the committing to GAMBLING his wealth of items.)

My two cents, the DM pulled a slightly underhanded trick, but no more so than anything else I haven't experienced with every DM I have ever played with.

The player deserved what he got.

[Ravenica]

mostly nonsense

Still waiting to find out when the NPC became a dmpc?

[gooddragon1]

I know that lawful evil is a fictional morality and has no baring on any real discussion of a metagame screw.

The DM took precautions to protect his notes. If the player had not metagamed he would not have felt "screwed". There was no implied or even likely malicious act from either party.



LOL are you kidding? How long have you been playing? We are over 30 years of abusive dm history and the players keep coming back, the only potential social implications are for that specific player and his DM of which it was already stated in the original post did not escalate beyond a single comment and everyone continued playing and lived happily ever after. Pretty sure we're safe bro.

No, the social implications are you get threads titled "help me make my DM cry" or "Did I screw this player over?" or "What should I do to this player?"

Just because it works doesn't mean it's what you should be doing.


That's not an automatically better solution. It gives the player a chance to deny it, and waht if the Dm wasn't sure themselves?

If the DM isn't sure then don't punish them. It means they didn't go full monte on preparing to fight the opponent. It also means that you can get creative in the encounter and state ahead of time "my npcs may alter sporadically during a fight as I need so take that into account if you read my notes but I will keep them appropriate to their CR". If they player did read them it will mean that it's not going to be of nearly any use to them and if they didn't they won't care as the CR will be appropriate.


This is akin to a player getting upset because the monster they're fighting has abilities that differ from the stats in the bestiary and they were basing their entire strategy based on their knowledge of the monster's stat block, despite previous ingame knowledge suggesting that the bestiary's stat block isn't an entirely accurate description of what they'll face ingame.

No, it's like saying "I won't deviate from the stat blocks in the MM so feel free to fight this monster" and then suddenly violating that statement to punish them for having the MM open to that page.

Don't do that.
Do this: I see you have the MM handy. Very well, I will be using non-traditional versions of the monster so expect different abilities. The MM will not avail you! Flame of Udun!

[scurv]

Because they're metagaming and intending to make decisions based off of information on a character sheet rather than information presented ingame?

ok fundamental attribution error aside.

There are two sides to this that i see and indicators that make me favor one over the other.

One the player is meta gaming,

two DM is using questionable tatics

Now in the player meta gaming catagory I see very little direct evidance to support it. Actualy I see none of note

Now in the DM using questionable tatics I see
1> Char sheet changing
2> DMPC in use, And we all know DM's never make them OP.....not like we have a thread on that topic
3> DM themself telling us they had to reassure the player that there would be no on the spot changes o the monk, Aversions to situations tend to be the result of conditioning often enough that they made a science out of it.
and 4 > Lets be real the player had it coming, I am simply upset at the delivery method.

[Ravenica]

{Scrubbed}

[gooddragon1]

No, you'll get those threads regardless. They stem from a much larger social problem than a simple bait and switch to catch a metagamer with his pants down

A problem that comes (in part) from players not trusting DM's. Maybe not all of it or not even a lot of it comes from there. But behavior like this isn't helping anything.
{Scrubbed}

[Boci]

No, it's like saying "I won't deviate from the stat blocks in the MM so feel free to fight this monster" and then suddenly violating that statement to punish them for having the MM open to that page.

Bad example. The MM is public domain, the DM's NPCs are not.

[scurv]

{Scrubbed}

[Ehra]

Now in the player meta gaming catagory I see very little direct evidance to support it. Actualy I see none of note

You're claiming the player was tricked by the DM switching character sheets. This "trick" could not have had any affect on the player unless they were making decisions based on one of those character sheets. As far as any other player could be aware, the outdated Monk character sheet could have belonged to an entirely different character, and the DM was just pulling out the monk's sheet from a pile of other NPC sheets they brought with. This is only a "trick" if the player knows (or, more accurately, thinks) the sheet belongs to the Monk and they're making decisions based on its contents.

I mean, come on. You keep on using the player's suspicion of the DM changing stats on the fly as evidence that the DM MUST have done something they're not telling us, yet the fact that the player would base their decision making on whether or not the DM would make any changes to the NPC proves they're metagaming.

[ArcturusV]

Heh, the MM example is kinda funny as I'll alter MM stat blocks all the time just to avoid people going, "Hmm, I know exactly what it does..." even if they don't have experience in game with them yet. Of course I also tell people I do that as well.

[gooddragon1]

Bad example. The MM is public domain, the DM's NPCs are not.

No it's exactly what happened. DM NPC being whatever it is should be fine and doesn't apply here. He presented one set of stats, misled the player into believing those were the right ones, and then switched them. Just come out and say: I know you looked at the stats but they were the wrong ones, think carefully on that information before you start this duel.


Heh, the MM example is kinda funny as I'll alter MM stat blocks all the time just to avoid people going, "Hmm, I know exactly what it does..." even if they don't have experience in game with them yet. Of course I also tell people I do that as well.

Sounds good. I once stole the stats of a white dragon wyrmling and stuck them on an undead template that looked like an undead dog just to switch things up. Mentioned that it was a "custom monster" and it worked out just fine. Tricky to get the CR right but it can make for interesting and non-metagamed combats with just a bit of effort.

[Ravenica]

Behavior like what? You have yet to form any semblance of an argument that paints the OP's actions in any way dishonest.

The player broke the trust, the DM was smart enough to have taken precautions.

At no time did the DM invite the player to metagame. He merely made it impossible for him to do so.

If the player hadn't attempted to use out of game knowledge and had instead used his ingame abilities to gather information he very likely would have been informed of the monks new capabilities. The burden of guilt is on the player for making a poor judgement call on and off the paper.

In what way would a DM allowing his player to cheat foster trust? In what way would "punishing" the player foster trust?

The DM straight up outfoxed someone who thought he was being clever. good on him, thats his job.

[scurv]

{Scrubbed}

[Boci]

No it's exactly what happened.

Doesn't change the fact that it's not a valid comparison.

Besides, you're version gives them the false choice of admitting to metagaming and backing down. I'm not even sure it would improve things and is certainly not the inherantly better answer.


Well It is a npc that seems to be in the party ran by the DM.

I don't get that impression from the OP.

[Ehra]

No, it's like saying "I won't deviate from the stat blocks in the MM so feel free to fight this monster" and then suddenly violating that statement to punish them for having the MM open to that page.

No, actually, it's not. What you're arguing is that the OP said "This is the character sheet that I'll be using for the Monk," which isn't what happened at all.

[Ravenica]

Well It is a npc that seems to be in the party ran by the DM. Those tend to be DMPC's


It was never stated he was in the party, EVERY npc is ran by the DM that doesn't make them DMPC's

You are calling antitrust issues on how the character was levelled and geared without any basis, especially considering it was covered in the OP

[scurv]

Behavior like what? You have yet to form any semblance of an argument that paints the OP's actions in any way dishonest.



Umm the ops own player being concerned about on the spot changes to the monk

well....the bait and switch that came moments after the op said that no changes would happen

It is little things that kinda indicate to me that the player MIGHT of had grounds to not trust the op.

[gooddragon1]

Behavior like what? You have yet to form any semblance of an argument that paints the OP's actions in any way dishonest.

The player broke the trust, the DM was smart enough to have taken precautions.

At no time did the DM invite the player to metagame. He merely made it impossible for him to do so.

If the player hadn't attempted to use out of game knowledge and had instead used his ingame abilities to gather information he very likely would have been informed of the monks new capabilities. The burden of guilt is on the player for making a poor judgement call on and off the paper.

In what way would a DM allowing his player to cheat foster trust? In what way would "punishing" the player foster trust?

The DM straight up outfoxed someone who thought he was being clever. good on him, thats his job.

This "Outfoxing a player" you describe is the behavior I'm advocating against. Because if you throw a plot twist that's all well and good. When you start stooping to metagaming tactics and start gaming your players is where the problem lies. I recommend strongly against it.

[scurv]

It was never stated he was in the party, EVERY npc is ran by the DM that doesn't make them DMPC's

You are calling antitrust issues on how the character was levelled and geared without any basis, especially considering it was covered in the OP

The backup char that the DM has tends to be with the party.

[Ravenica]

Umm the ops own player being concerned about on the spot changes to the monk

well....the bait and switch that came moments after the op said that no changes would happen

It is little things that kinda indicate to me that the player MIGHT of had grounds to not trust the op.

The OP had grounds not to trust the player, the player had grounds not to trust the DM. Both were founded.

However, the DM never claimed that the visible sheet was the monks sheet. Any assumption on that part was solely the assumption of a metagaming PC.

[Boci]

well....the bait and switch that came moments after the op said that no changes would happen.

You mean the bait and switch which would have not disadvantaged the PC in any way had they not metagamed?


This "Outfoxing a player" you describe is the behavior I'm advocating against. Because if you throw a plot twist that's all well and good. When you start stooping to metagaming tactics and start gaming your players is where the problem lies. I recommend strongly against it.

But whait, just earlier you said it was fine as long as you inform the player of your actions before the duel starts and give them a chance to back out.

[Ehra]

It is little things that kinda indicate to me that the player MIGHT of had grounds to not trust the op.

The entire scenario MIGHT have also been made up on the spot and this is actually someone doing a psych study for one of their classes. The OP MIGHT have been written by 100 monkeys banging on a keyboard. But unless there's actual evidence for it, it's not really relevant to the thread.

[gooddragon1]

No, actually, it's not. What you're arguing is that the OP said "This is the character sheet that I'll be using for the Monk," which isn't what happened at all.

Certainly sounds like he misled him into believing it to me. Used car salesman who sell you a car with defects often neglect to mention some things. They didn't say it didn't have defects because you never asked. Doesn't make it any less scummy of a thing to do.

DM's shouldn't do stuff like that.


But whait, just earlier you said it was fine as long as you inform the player of your actions before the duel starts and give them a chance to back out.

That's the problem, he didn't. He made it seem like it was the same stakes as before through deception.

[Ravenica]

This "Outfoxing a player" you describe is the behavior I'm advocating against. Because if you throw a plot twist that's all well and good. When you start stooping to metagaming tactics and start gaming your players is where the problem lies. I recommend strongly against it.

Player made his choice to metagame, he doesn't get to complain when it backfires. Straight up. No questions asked.

You cheat, you lose. He suffered his "punishment" and they went on to have a good gaming session. If it was a "screw" it was the least effective screw in history as it seems there is no lasting damage.

[Deophaun]

The backup char that the DM has tends to be with the party.
Still doesn't make him a DMPC. He is a backup PC that the DM maintains, and stays in the vicinity of the party. That is all we know. If he never fights (except when challenged by a PC) and doesn't direct the party, then he's just an NPC.

You could be right that he is a DMPC, but that's assuming facts not in evidence.

[Boci]

Certainly sounds like he misled him into believing it to me. Used car salesman who sell you a car with defects often neglect to mention some things. They didn't say it didn't have defects because you never asked. Doesn't make it any less scummy of a thing to do.

Again, not a valid comparison. A PC has no right to know the stats of the NPCs, pretty sure most people have a right to know about the car they are buying.


That's the problem, he didn't. He made it seem like it was the same stakes as before through deception.

So its okay for the Dm to metagame, just not in the manner the OP did, or it isn't okay at all?

[scurv]

The OP had grounds not to trust the player, the player had grounds not to trust the DM. Both were founded.

However, the DM never claimed that the visible sheet was the monks sheet. Any assumption on that part was solely the assumption of a metagaming PC.

Well a moment ago you said


Behavior like what? You have yet to form any semblance of an argument that paints the OP's actions in any way dishonest.

Now can you explain to me how you view honest/dishonest and how it relates to trust. I am having trouble understanding your world view

[gooddragon1]

Player made his choice to metagame, he doesn't get to complain when it backfires. Straight up. No questions asked.

You cheat, you lose. He suffered his "punishment" and they went on to have a good gaming session. If it was a "screw" it was the least effective screw in history as it seems there is no lasting damage.

Fine, make them lose, but don't humiliate them and don't breach their trust to make them lose.

No lasting damage mentioned by the OP. So as long as the OP is a mind reader then it should be all good.

[Boci]

Fine, make them lose, but don't humiliate them and don't breach their trust to make them lose.

Don't breach their trust they have that they can metagame to gain an unfair advantage? I'm sorry, but I cannot take the sentiment seriously.

[gooddragon1]

Again, not a valid comparison. A PC has no right to know the stats of the NPCs, pretty sure most people have a right to know about the car they are buying.

So its okay for the Dm to metagame, just not in the manner the OP did, or it isn't okay at all?

It's okay for the DM to know the players stats to adjust challenges for them. It's not okay for the DM to "trick" a player by abusing trust.

I had a game where I was running 1st level characters against undead and I decided to have them fight skeletons. These guys were new players and a few of them were archers (and 1 rogue). I reduced the DR from 5 to 2 (increased HP by 10) after determining their abilities when I asked their class and level at the start of the game. It allowed them to feel like they could do something instead of plinking off the DR of the skeletons.


Don't breach their trust they have that they can metagame to gain an unfair advantage? I'm sorry, but I cannot take the sentiment seriously.

No, don't stoop to breaches of trust to punish metagaming. Feel free to punish it but don't humiliate people.

[scurv]

Still doesn't make him a DMPC. He is a backup PC that the DM maintains, and stays in the vicinity of the party. That is all we know. If he never fights (except when challenged by a PC) and doesn't direct the party, then he's just an NPC.

You could be right that he is a DMPC, but that's assuming facts not in evidence.

educated guess on that assumption. The player should of had a fair idea of what that monk had, Considering it had his gear, And he recently dueled him. So At this point I am wondering what store the monk had access to shop in, between sessions.

[Ravenica]

{Scrubbed}

[Waspinator]

Here's my question: what kind of crazy people decide to randomly duel with their entire net worth as the stakes?

[Ehra]

Certainly sounds like he misled him into believing it to me. Used car salesman who sell you a car with defects often neglect to mention some things. They didn't say it didn't have defects because you never asked. Doesn't make it any less scummy of a thing to do.

DM's shouldn't do stuff like that.


DMs shouldn't keep around outdated copies of a NPC's character sheet? That's really something that you feel DMs should be obligated to avoid doing? It's wrong because then a player might decide to cheat but they'd look at the wrong sheet and leave with outdated information?

And it really doesn't matter how often you guys ignore the OP and try to come up with flawed analogies, they flat out told the players that the Monk had gone shopping to some degree.

[Deophaun]

So At this point I am wondering what store the monk had access to shop in, between sessions.
Maybe the same one the player had access to? ("Store" being an abstraction of how high-value items are actually purchased.)

Two sessions ago the PC challenged a Monk NPC/reserve PC that had been around for a while and lost. As a result he was without items, carrying a lot at that point as the result of the previous duels and such. One session ago he gained a lot of gold, than gambled it all to double it putting him over his WBL. The Monk NPC also added to his - now - very considerable gear as a result of another PC's actions. I informed the PC that he could spend the gold inbetween that session and the one that took place today. I also levelled the Monk and graded his gear up appropiatly.

[Boci]

No, don't stoop to breaches of trust to punish metagaming. Feel free to punish it but don't humiliate people.

But what trust was breached other than the player's trust that they could cheat by reading the monk's character sheet?

[Ravenica]

Here's my question: what kind of crazy people decide to randomly duel with their entire net worth as the stakes?

http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2004-01-15

[scurv]

{Scrubbed}

[gooddragon1]

Here's my question: what kind of crazy people decide to randomly duel with their entire net worth as the stakes?

Adventurers, and with more than that... their lives :D

But really, it's the hotheaded people. Just let the natural processes of the game take care of it. The guard/kingdom/deities get involved. That's part of the game.

Player-DM Trust (DMG pg 13)

...and by making it clear that you're not vindictive towards the players or the PC's...

[Ehra]

Maybe the same one the player had access to? ("Store" being an abstraction of how high-value items are actually purchased.)


I don't even see how that was supposed to be a relevant question. The player wasn't upset that they necessarily lost, their issue was that the character sheets were switched. How powerful the new gear was is completely irrelevant, the player was just shocked that the monk had new gear at all despite being told that the Monk was wearing a new robe.

[scurv]

The entire scenario MIGHT have also been made up on the spot and this is actually someone doing a psych study for one of their classes. The OP MIGHT have been written by 100 monkeys banging on a keyboard. But unless there's actual evidence for it, it's not really relevant to the thread.

I am sorry you could not see the evidence I pointed out about ten minutes before. But if you wish to contest those details i await an erudite counter argument.

[Ravenica]

Come on, I expected something a little better. What are you 15?
I wish! Ah to be young again.

I don't discuss my personal beliefs, religion, politics, or anything remotely serious for the matter, on the interwebs. Nor are said subjects the topic of debate here. If you REALLY want to see me in action come troll the kongregate chats with me some time, one mention of gun control and you can end up with two hours of amusement.

[Ehra]

I am sorry you could not see the evidence I pointed out about ten minutes before. But if you wish to contest those details i await an erudite counter argument.

I'm sorry but no matter how much you claim otherwise things you assume and extrapolate from what was actually said is not "evidence." If this thread were about events that happened in a movie then your posts would be fan fiction, not analysis.

[scurv]

I don't even see how that was supposed to be a relevant question. The player wasn't upset that they necessarily lost, their issue was that the character sheets were switched. How powerful the new gear was is completely irrelevant, the player was just shocked that the monk had new gear at all despite being told that the Monk was wearing a new robe.

Well swapped char sheets is one issue. But at this point in time I am seeing tricks that are being compared to those used by car salesmans by other people in this thread and I have to ask this. Was that monk upgraded in such a fashion that the other players would of had fair access to comparable gear? What I am seeing in the DM's actions leads me to question that.

[Deophaun]

I don't even see how that was supposed to be a relevant question.
The relevance of a question is immaterial to a conspiracy. Its mere existence is enough to prove malice behind the ordinary.

[Rukia]

scurv, gooddragon...

Somehow you've missed the entire point of this post. You're so caught up with how the DM handled the situation instead of focusing on the real issue. What if the DM's notes weren't visible? What would the player have done in that situation?

He makes his decision purely with information gained only from in game sources. Whether he loses or wins or chooses not to fight is irrelevant as it was completely in-game as it should be.

The fact that he made any decision whatsoever based on a stack of papers sitting next to the DM means he was metagaming. Period. Whether or not the DM pulled a bait and switch, or purposely mislead the player is totally irrelevant. The DM isn't obligated to go to the trouble of hiding his notes, it's the obligation of the players to disregard them as out of game material. If they sneak a glance or make decisions based on something they see OUT OF GAME then it is not the obligation to use it.

When I DM I don't use a screen. I roll in the open as well as have my notes in front of me. We're a mature group and I expect my players not to make in-game decisions based on what they may have seen on my notes. If I were to notice them looking at could tell they were making decisions based on it then you know what I'd do? I'd purposely put false information on my notes and when they made decisions based on it that eventually bit them in the arse I'd laugh and would never have to worry about them doing it again.

The thing is my players don't do this. They're there to enjoy the game as it is and not try to cheat or sneak a glance to get an advantage or make important decisions. That is exactly what this player was doing and got exactly what was coming to him. You can defend him all you want and demonize the DM, but he didn't do anything wrong.

The DM is under no obligation to use what is listed in his notes. If the players want to base decisions based on this outside information then the fault lies solely on them if things don't go how they expected. I read so many player entitlement/DM cruelty threads these days, I start to wonder what has happened to this generation of gamers. D&D used to be an extremely deadly game where most characters didn't just waltz into high levels for free, yet it seems to be what is expected nowadays.

Seriously... a PC challenging every NPC he comes across for all their belongings. Am I the only that couldn't see the logical conclusion to that tactic?

[scurv]

I'm sorry but no matter how much you claim otherwise things you assume and extrapolate from what was actually said is not "evidence." If this thread were about events that happened in a movie then your posts would be fan fiction, not analysis.

personal incredulity aside.
well here is one tidbit


To be clear, I said no changes would be made to the sheet of the Monk (he was worried I would literally change stuff on the spot). I did not say which sheet was the Monk's.

Explain this away for me

[Ehra]

I already did.

[Boci]

personal incredulity aside.
well here is one tidbit



Explain this away for me

The DM used carefully chosen words to trick someone who was metagaming?

[Thunndarr]

personal incredulity aside.
well here is one tidbit



Explain this away for me

The player pulled a stunt that is essentially like looking at the opposing player's poker hand before placing a bet. I don't see how it can get any more clear cut that this isn't kosher.

[Yahzi]

if he didn't take the ingame time to check for new gear then it's certainly not a screw. considering this character beat him before it shouldn't have come as a suprise that he got beaten again.
This. Although when he asked you if you had changed anything, you should have said, "Who are you asking?" I.e. made it an in-game requirement for him to get intelligence on the monk. You sorta implied that he didn't need to do that.

[scurv]

scurv, gooddragon...

Somehow you've missed the entire point of this post. You're so caught up with how the DM handled the situation instead of focusing on the real issue. What if the DM's notes weren't visible? What would the player have done in that situation?




Re: Did I screw this player over?
Here is the point goo and I are addressing from what I have observed. The player had it coming. Little to no argument on that. BUT It was handled in such a way that questions the trust that can be placed in the DM.

And as for the player meta gaming I see little evidance for that, It is convenient to blame the victim. But in the OPs own words the extent of the players complaint is that the op pulled a bait and switch on the player. And the player still did not make a big deal out of it according to the op.

[Kyberwulf]

That is still metagaming. If a Player asks the Dm, did you change anything. The Dm is under no obligation to answer.

If he asked as a character, it would have been different.

[scurv]

The player pulled a stunt that is essentially like looking at the opposing player's poker hand before placing a bet. I don't see how it can get any more clear cut that this isn't kosher.

I am saying that it is not kosher, But it was said that this is not grounds to indicate that the player did not trust their DM

[Kyberwulf]

You mean, how can you trust a Gm to stick to his notes. Notes that you shouldn't never see, or trying to look?

[Boci]

Here is the point goo and I are addressing from what I have observed. The player had it coming. Little to no argument on that. BUT It was handled in such a way that questions the trust that can be placed in the DM.

And as for the player meta gaming I see little evidance for that.

You mean other than looking at the character sheet of an NPC to gain access to information he couldn't otherwise have? And if he didn't, why did the swtich of character sheets matter?

[scurv]

{Scrubbed}

[Thunndarr]

I am saying that it is not kosher, But it was said that this is not grounds to indicate that the player did not trust their DM

From the fact that the DM had to resort to such trickery, I would expect you to wonder *why* the DM needed to do this. According to your theory above, that the player had reason to mistrust the DM, wouldn't this in fact prove the theory that the player likely engaged in just this type of meta-gaming enough times in the past that the DM was forced to come up with this clever bit of trickery? After all, it would only hurt a cheater.

[Ehra]

I missed it, Say it again slowly for me.

You missed it? You quoted it and replied directly to it. Which I then replied to and you ignored. I'm not going to keep posting the same thing over and over again just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

[Deophaun]

This. Although when he asked you if you had changed anything, you should have said, "Who are you asking?" I.e. made it an in-game requirement for him to get intelligence on the monk. You sorta implied that he didn't need to do that.
Frankly, I am amazed at how often carefully worded, legalistic phrases slip past people in gaming groups. It's such a well established trope that my BS detector pings off the charts at these things and I can't possibly think anyone will fall for it. But, I'm often proven wrong right in my own backyard.

[scurv]

From the fact that the DM had to resort to such trickery, I would expect you to wonder *why* the DM needed to do this. According to your theory above, that the player had reason to mistrust the DM, wouldn't this in fact prove the theory that the player likely engaged in just this type of meta-gaming enough times in the past that the DM was forced to come up with this clever bit of trickery? After all, it would only hurt a cheater.

Well There is not enough evidence to prove that the player meta-gamed. The players fear that the DM was going to change the monk on the spot can be caused by several things. And quite a few of them could be the result of said monk being a DMPC. Actualy there is alot of it could be this or it could be that.

[scurv]

You missed it? You quoted it and replied directly to it. Which I then replied to and you ignored. I'm not going to keep posting the same thing over and over again just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Well I am not putting it together, Help me with this, You seem to care enough to still reply.

[Boci]

Well There is not enough evidence to prove that the player meta-gamed.

But if the player didn't metagame, then why were they bothered by the switching of sheets?

[Ravenica]

probably the aliens with their dice beams

[Thunndarr]

Well There is not enough evidence to prove that the player meta-gamed. The players fear that the DM was going to change the monk on the spot can be caused by several things. And quite a few of them could be the result of said monk being a DMPC. Actualy there is alot of it could be this or it could be that.

Um, there most definitely was proof the player metagamed.

[gooddragon1]

scurv, gooddragon...

Somehow you've missed the entire point of this post. You're so caught up with how the DM handled the situation instead of focusing on the real issue. What if the DM's notes weren't visible? What would the player have done in that situation?

He makes his decision purely with information gained only from in game sources. Whether he loses or wins or chooses not to fight is irrelevant as it was completely in-game as it should be.

The fact that he made any decision whatsoever based on a stack of papers sitting next to the DM means he was metagaming. Period. Whether or not the DM pulled a bait and switch, or purposely mislead the player is totally irrelevant. The DM isn't obligated to go to the trouble of hiding his notes, it's the obligation of the players to disregard them as out of game material. If they sneak a glance or make decisions based on something they see OUT OF GAME then it is not the obligation to use it.

When I DM I don't use a screen. I roll in the open as well as have my notes in front of me. We're a mature group and I expect my players not to make in-game decisions based on what they may have seen on my notes. If I were to notice them looking at could tell they were making decisions based on it then you know what I'd do? I'd purposely put false information on my notes and when they made decisions based on it that eventually bit them in the arse I'd laugh and would never have to worry about them doing it again.

The thing is my players don't do this. They're there to enjoy the game as it is and not try to cheat or sneak a glance to get an advantage or make important decisions. That is exactly what this player was doing and got exactly what was coming to him. You can defend him all you want and demonize the DM, but he didn't do anything wrong.

The DM is under no obligation to use what is listed in his notes. If the players want to base decisions based on this outside information then the fault lies solely on them if things don't go how they expected. I read so many player entitlement/DM cruelty threads these days, I start to wonder what has happened to this generation of gamers. D&D used to be an extremely deadly game where most characters didn't just waltz into high levels for free, yet it seems to be what is expected nowadays.

Seriously... a PC challenging every NPC he comes across for all their belongings. Am I the only that couldn't see the logical conclusion to that tactic?

Punish the player, have the guard intervene like i mentioned and escalate if necessary, do what you need to do ... without violating their trust. Never resort to that. Never. If you think an action you might take would cause the player to mistrust you as a person then don't do it. Once you lose the trust of a person it can be hard to regain.


abusive dm

This term is an abomination to the soul of D&D. Players bear with abusive DM's because they don't have the will or the means to seek out other DM's. It's not a justification for a DM to be abusive.

[Premier]

Guys, everyone...

What the player was doing is not metagaming. Metagaming is stuff like "Well, that NPC hit me with a 16 but missed with a 15, so he must have an Attack Bonus of X, which means he must be of the Fighter class. I'm going to base my tactics on the assumption that he's a Fighter." or "The place is called Gnoll Valley, so we'll assume the adventure will be all about fighting gnolls. The DM has never said that the gnolls of his campaign world worship Yeenoghu like the ones in official settings, but let's assume they do and base our tactics on what special spells the shamans of Yeenoghu get."[/i] That's metagaming. It is not inherently immoral or wrong, but it might be unwise.

What the player was doing is cheating. He was reading the DM's notes. It's on the same level as quickly covering your rolls and calling out false results or not ticking off the spells on your character sheet so you can "use them again by accident". It's wrong and reprehensible.

Gooddragon and scurv, you're saying the DM has violated the player's thrust. I'm sorry, but that claim is just as immoral as what the player did. A cheater doesn't deserve any trust, because he is a cheater. This is not a matter of trust. If I install an anti-burglary system in my home, or buy a big dog and train it to bite burglars, I'm not "betraying the trust that poor innocent burglar deserves".

[Boci]

Once you lose the trust of a person it can be hard to regain.

Like how it can be hard for a PC to regain the trust of their DM after it was proven that they metagame to gain an advantage.

[Ravenica]

If the player isn't trustworthy then they will never trust you.

[Arundel]

I am really really surprised that there is a debate about this. While I don't know if I would have killed the player in the duels, I certainly would have had the monk beat him into negatives and maybe take a new item or two.

The player in question played with fire and got burned. End of story.

[gooddragon1]

Guys, everyone...

What the player was doing is not metagaming. Metagaming is stuff like "Well, that NPC hit me with a 16 but missed with a 15, so he must have an Attack Bonus of X, which means he must be of the Fighter class. I'm going to base my tactics on the assumption that he's a Fighter." or "The place is called Gnoll Valley, so we'll assume the adventure will be all about fighting gnolls. The DM has never said that the gnolls of his campaign world worship Yeenoghu like the ones in official settings, but let's assume they do and base our tactics on what special spells the shamans of Yeenoghu get."[/i] That's metagaming. It is not inherently immoral or wrong, but it might be unwise.

What the player was doing is cheating. He was reading the DM's notes. It's on the same level as quickly covering your rolls and calling out false results or not ticking off the spells on your character sheet so you can "use them again by accident". It's wrong and reprehensible.

Gooddragon and scurv, you're saying the DM has violated the player's thrust. I'm sorry, but that claim is just as immoral as what the player did. A cheater doesn't deserve any trust, because he is a cheater. This is not a matter of trust. If I install an anti-burglary system in my home, or buy a big dog and train it to bite burglars, I'm not "betraying the trust that poor innocent burglar deserves".

No, this is you stealing from the person (not just getting your stuff back either) because they have demonstrated themselves as a burglar and then justifying it because they are a burglar.


Like how it can be hard for a PC to regain the trust of their DM after it was proven that they metagame to gain an advantage.

Yeah, it would be. I'd be layin down the law at that point. But I'd never break their trust in kind. Makes me no better than them.

[Ravenica]

No, this is you stealing from the person (not just getting your stuff back either) because they have demonstrated themselves as a burglar and then justifying it because they are a burglar.

nah it's much more like adding "Don't" to your beware of dog sign.

[Hyde]

I probably would not have pulled the stunt with the monk's old sheet (though I would have updated it).

The fact that NPCs are going to adapt to challenges presented to them is easy enough to teach without a switcheroo.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it.

But personally, I'd have him continue on his merry until he came across a wise-looking old man with seven canaries.

[Boci]

No, this is you stealing from the person (not just getting your stuff back either) because they have demonstrated themselves as a burglar and then justifying it because they are a burglar.

Nice to know you can recnognize when a comparison isn't valid.

Would you care to comment on their distinction between metagaming and cheating, because that was the more insightful part of their post?


Yeah, it would be. I'd be layin down the law at that point. But I'd never break their trust in kind. Makes me no better than them.

Not really. "Have a taste of your own medicine" is a valid tactic, and the trust that was violated was one that cheating works, so no, I do not agree with that statement at all.

[gooddragon1]

nah it's much more like adding "Don't" to your beware of dog sign.

And then some poor sucker getting mauled to death by your dog for being too trusting to understand it (maybe because they have english as a secondary language)? It's pretty funny to watch though. And to be fair, they really should know better. Maybe the next one will get the idea. Or the one after that. Well, eventually anyways.


Nice to know you can recnognize when a comparison isn't valid.

Would you care to comment on their distinction between metagaming and cheating, because that was the more insightful part of their post?

One and the same when the player does it. Feel free to punish them... not to violate their trust.

[Ravenica]

And then some poor sucker getting mauled to death by your dog for being too trusting to understand it (maybe because they have english as a secondary language)? It's pretty funny to watch though. And to be fair, they really should know better.



One and the same when the player does it. Feel free to punish them... not to violate their trust.

They shouldn't have been in my house when I wasn't there

[gooddragon1]

They shouldn't have been in my house when I wasn't there

They shouldn't have been on your lawn either it seems (unless you keep your dog indoors (not specified by the way)).

[scurv]

But if the player didn't metagame, then why were they bothered by the switching of sheets?

From the way the OP's post is worded he was setting up a situation were innocence can not be proved on the part of the player. Even if guilt can not be proved ether in regards to meta-gaming.


We were sitting around the table and I put the Monk's old sheet on top of the papers I had with me. I started the game,

Now from here Yes it looks a bit murky on the players part as it goes down a bit farther, but the op later posting


(he was worried I would literally change stuff on the spot)
Makes this situation reek even more of entrapment. Why should this player be concerned about that?

Later the player wished to fight for just honor, But what made the player decide to fight for items instead? Details are sketchy at this point and it is quite easy to read into it that the player was meta gaming. But the player seems to be quite cardboard and two dimensional to get an accurate read on their motives.



Any way, he did not make a big deal out of it

With the above quote I have to ask, Is that the players full response or only what the OP wished to perceive? When I look at how bait and switch tatics are justified by the OP I now have to question if the OP would of relayed to us anything else the player might of indicated

[Boci]

And then some poor sucker getting mauled to death by your dog for being too trusting to understand it (maybe because they have english as a secondary language)? It's pretty funny to watch though. And to be fair, they really should know better. Maybe the next one will get the idea. Or the one after that. Well, eventually anyways.

Your tone suggests sarcasm, but what your saying is common sense. The dog owner is not to blame.


One and the same when the player does it. Feel free to punish them... not to violate their trust.

Not violate their trust that cheating works. Sure (This is sarcasm.)

[gooddragon1]

Your tone suggests sarcasm, but what your saying is common sense. The dog owner is not to blame.



Not violate their trust that cheating works. Sure (This is sarcasm.)

I'm not exactly sure how watching someone die IRL can be funny but w/e.

2 Wrongs != 1 Right.
X Wrongs != 1 Right.

[Ravenica]

They shouldn't have been on your lawn either it seems (unless you keep your dog indoors (not specified by the way)).

If my dog is trained to savage anyone somewhere they shouldn't be you can damn well bet he's in doors. someone wants to clean out my lawn the are welcome to that junk!

[Ace Nex]

He attempted to metagame and should have known that eventually he'd come across someone who could best him. While fun at times, you may want to watch PCs that go power corrupt. The best solution is often to remind them of their position, or better yet, let them bite off more than they can chew.

[Boci]

From the way the OP's post is worded he was setting up a situation were innocence can not be proved on the part of the player. Even if guilt can not be proved ether in regards to meta-gaming.

The way to prove innosence would have been to not complain about the switch because if you hadn't cheated it changes nothing.


Makes this situation reek even more of entrapment. Why should this player be concerned about that?

Because with his play style up until then, he knew he kinda deserved it?


With the above quote I have to ask, Is that the players full response or only what the OP wished to perceive?

No, you really don't have to ask. Its possible, but you are going out of your way to paint the PC as brightly as possible, and the DM as nagativly as possible.


I'm not exactly sure how watching someone die IRL can be funny but w/e.

I'm going to choose to assume you know that you've just dodged my point.


2 Wrongs != 1 Right.
X Wrongs != 1 Right.

No, but they can work at showing the person who initially committed the wrong why what they did was bad. Or make the person who had to suffer it feel better.

[gooddragon1]

If my dog is trained to savage anyone somewhere they shouldn't be you can damn well bet he's in doors. someone wants to clean out my lawn the are welcome to that junk!

Well, if they are indoors then fine, but what about if you had that dog in the backyard with that sign and some hooligan decided to test that hypothesis. [sarcasm]Well, he certainly got what he deserved for trespassing and won't that be one hell of an example to anyone else[sarcasm].

Honestly, some of you guys are coming across as ridiculously cruel.

[Boci]

Well, if they are indoors then fine, but what about if you had that dog in the backyard with that sign and some hooligan decided to test that hypothesis.

That's going above and beyond my requirements of making my stuff idiot proof. I mean how do they even know it was me who removed the "do not" from "Do not disturb", and not another group of hooligans.

Plus you're twisting the example by making the dog an attack dog, who attacks without your command. So essentially a feral dog.

[Ravenica]

Well, if they are indoors then fine, but what about if you had that dog in the backyard with that sign and some hooligan decided to test that hypothesis. [sarcasm]Well, he certainly got what he deserved for trespassing and won't that be one hell of an example to anyone else[sarcasm].

Honestly, some of you guys are coming across as ridiculously cruel.
well lets take the dog analogy back a space:

Dog is trained to defend yard, not necessarily lethally (OP had pk as "accidental")

"Don't beware of dog" sign is up

Honest person arrives: Has no legit reason to enter yard, probably doesn't read sign. Walks past.

Honest Person Arrives: Has legit "reason" to enter yard (Jehovahs witness, door to door salesperson, meter reader) Dog begins warning behavior regardless of sign, honest person will probably leave without provoking animal

Dishonest person arrives: wants to stealzorz my bicycle: sees sign, enters yard, ignores warning behavior, gets mauled, accidentally dies


Am I going to feel bad that I breached his trust with my sign? No.
Am I going to feel bad he died as a result? Probably.

Same situation in a fantasy setting with dungeons and dragons and a cheating pc, are the first two answers the same? Yes
Am I guiltily going to post a thread regarding my actions to see if my actions were justified or utterly horendous? Personally no, but not everyone is as much of an ass as me :smallamused:

[scurv]

@Boci
DM's have been known to adjust npcs that have been in play for quite a while. Just because they needed said npc to do something. Some people call it schrodinger's cat style of DMing, But quite often it is used in a capricious manor.
The above is a situation were a player would be justified in complaining about a switch, And it meshes as well with the DM having to reassure his player that he would not


(he was worried I would literally change stuff on the spot).

<edit> Paint the above trait brightly for me in regards to the DM please.

[gooddragon1]

That's going above and beyond my requirements of making my stuff idiot proof. I mean how do they even know it was me who removed the "do not" from "Do not disturb", and not another group of hooligans.

Plus you're twisting the example by making the dog an attack dog, who attacks without your command. So essentially a feral dog.

This is what's happening. You're lying to a player (implicitly if you want to play it that way) and breaking their trust to punish them for breaking yours. Seems fair on paper, really isn't in practice. Don't lie to a player out of character ever.


Am I going to feel bad that I breached his trust with my sign? No.
Am I going to feel bad he died as a result? Probably.

Well, at least that's something.

Bottom line: I don't care if the DM punishes a player for cheating. But a DM should never lie to a player out of character about the game.

[scurv]

So we got two people who are looking at the morals of the situation and how it applies to the way the game is handled.

And many people looking at how the game is handled and how it should adjust morality. This would make a nice psych study.

[Boci]

Bottom line: I don't care if the DM punishes a player for cheating. But a DM should never lie to a player out of character.

That's one school of thought, another would be that the player lost such a right when he cheated. As long as the DM uses moderation and draws a line under the incident afterwards, I don't see it as being inherantly wrong.

Plus the DM didn't lie.


@Boci
DM's have been known to adjust npcs that have been in play for quite a while. Just because they needed said npc to do something. Some people call it schrodinger's cat style of DMing, But quite often it is used in a capricious manor.
The above is a situation were a player would be justified in complaining about a switch, And it meshes as well with the DM having to reassure his player that he would not

That's one possible interpretation. Do you see what I mean when I say you are going out of your way to stack the odds against the DM? Also, do you now accept that the player cheated?

[TuggyNE]

What the player was doing is cheating. He was reading the DM's notes. It's on the same level as quickly covering your rolls and calling out false results or not ticking off the spells on your character sheet so you can "use them again by accident". It's wrong and reprehensible.

Basically, this.


Makes this situation reek even more of entrapment. Why should this player be concerned about that?

Y'know, this is just speculation (necessarily; just like your hypothesis) but it seems quite plausible to me that the player was projecting (in the psychological sense); someone who cheats to win duels might sensibly expect others to do the same. Alternatively, they had bad DMs in the past. Alternatively, they're just paranoid. And so on and so forth.

You can come up with a lot of explanations that aren't "this particular DM totally has a history of fiating NPC stat changes after the fact", and those alternate explanations are at least as plausible individually.

[Ravenica]

Bottom line: I don't care if the DM punishes a player for cheating. But a DM should never lie to a player out of character about the game.

Long and shot the crux of this argument is that you see the DM's actions as lying and the only one that comes close to agreeing with you is Scurv

The DM concealed the monks character sheet: ok so far not lying.
The DM stated he would not alter the sheet: Still very much not lying
The DM placed an old sheet on the top of his stack: Again he made no statement there contrary to the truth.
The DM specifically mentioned IN GAME that the character had changed: Very much a complete honesty.

The DM filled his side of the trust bargain with players.

The player cheated: Yup dishonest, and expected.
The player guilted his DM when it backfired: Yeah still not liking this guy.
The player has gone out of his way to be obnoxious: Yeah he didn't get punished so much as hoist by his own petard

[scurv]

That's one possible interpretation. Do you see what I mean when I say you are going out of your way to stack the odds against the DM? Also, do you now accept that the player cheated?

Ummm, I see that the OP is using bait and switch tatics, And It is the OP who is giving us the two dimensional Player to read into.



The player guilted his DM when it backfired: Yeah still not liking this guy.

Give me the quote to back these please

[Thunndarr]

Ummm, I see that the OP is using bait and switch tatics, And It is the OP who is giving us the two dimensional Player to read into.


It's only bait and switch in the event the player cheats. If he never looks at the obsolete sheet, then we have no issue.

[Ravenica]

{Scrubbed}

[RFLS]

Ummm, I see that the OP is using bait and switch tatics.

The player straight-up cheated. How is this difficult for you to understand?

[scurv]

It's only bait and switch in the event the player cheats. If he never looks at the obsolete sheet, then we have no issue.

And yet the OP had to tell us that he reassured his player that there would be no on the spot changes, ....And please give to me a quote showing how the player cheated. The OP paints a picture of opportunity, And said player was not upset that his char died. So I have to ask. Is the player upset that he died (as the op said player was not) Or is the player upset at the breach of trust, Which there is significant reasons presented by the op, And accepted by many people here that the OP could of handled it in a more ethical manor.

[Thunndarr]

And please give to me a quote showing how the player cheated.

Oh dear God. HOW DID THE PLAYER KNOW THERE WERE TWO CHARACTER SHEETS? The obvious and logical answer is, he looked. Ipso facto, e pluribus unum, ergo, he cheated. How do you not understand that?

[Tsriel]

scurv, gooddragon...

Somehow you've missed the entire point of this post. You're so caught up with how the DM handled the situation instead of focusing on the real issue. What if the DM's notes weren't visible? What would the player have done in that situation?

He makes his decision purely with information gained only from in game sources. Whether he loses or wins or chooses not to fight is irrelevant as it was completely in-game as it should be.

The fact that he made any decision whatsoever based on a stack of papers sitting next to the DM means he was metagaming. Period. Whether or not the DM pulled a bait and switch, or purposely mislead the player is totally irrelevant. The DM isn't obligated to go to the trouble of hiding his notes, it's the obligation of the players to disregard them as out of game material. If they sneak a glance or make decisions based on something they see OUT OF GAME then it is not the obligation to use it.

When I DM I don't use a screen. I roll in the open as well as have my notes in front of me. We're a mature group and I expect my players not to make in-game decisions based on what they may have seen on my notes. If I were to notice them looking at could tell they were making decisions based on it then you know what I'd do? I'd purposely put false information on my notes and when they made decisions based on it that eventually bit them in the arse I'd laugh and would never have to worry about them doing it again.

The thing is my players don't do this. They're there to enjoy the game as it is and not try to cheat or sneak a glance to get an advantage or make important decisions. That is exactly what this player was doing and got exactly what was coming to him. You can defend him all you want and demonize the DM, but he didn't do anything wrong.

The DM is under no obligation to use what is listed in his notes. If the players want to base decisions based on this outside information then the fault lies solely on them if things don't go how they expected. I read so many player entitlement/DM cruelty threads these days, I start to wonder what has happened to this generation of gamers. D&D used to be an extremely deadly game where most characters didn't just waltz into high levels for free, yet it seems to be what is expected nowadays.

Seriously... a PC challenging every NPC he comes across for all their belongings. Am I the only that couldn't see the logical conclusion to that tactic?

I agree with you, Rukia. In this whole long thread, this best sums up my thoughts on it.

[scurv]

sorry thought you had read the thread

I did


Eventually the Monk accidently kills him, but that is all in the game. Any way, he did not make a big deal out of it but said it was unfair for me to use another sheet. I told him he should not be meta-gaming.

Let us go over this line by line,


The monk accidently killed the player

In this I see an effort on the OPs part to distance himself from blame. (Although dm fiat is would of been civil to pull here potently) But this smacks of the dog that did not bark.


but that is all in the game.

This bit seems a bit odd to me, Yes we know it was in the game, But What is this "all" the op is talking about.


Any way, he did not make a big deal out of it
Fairly mature or apathetic on the part of the player, As i said the player is fairly two dimensional and easy to read into what you want. But It seems to me that the player was not upset as others claimed the player was at this point.


but said it was unfair for me to use another sheet.
Here I am seeing a concern for honesty, And considering this is the same DM that had to reassure his player that there would be no on the spot changes....Maybe the player is paranoid. Maybe the DM is less then ethical in how he handles things. I have seen evidence of the latter

[Ravenica]

{Scrubbed}

[scurv]

Oh dear God. HOW DID THE PLAYER KNOW THERE WERE TWO CHARACTER SHEETS? The obvious and logical answer is, he looked. Ipso facto, e pluribus unum, ergo, he cheated. How do you not understand that?

The player knew there was two char sheets? Or did the player know the DM? The DM seems to be the ends justifiy the means type of personalty so far, Although I tend to rather treating each person as a means onto them self.

I am not reading anywhere that the player knew there was to char sheets. The player seemed more concerned about on the spot changes according to the op

[scurv]

{Scrubbed}

[Ravenica]

{Scrubbed}

[Thunndarr]

The player knew there was two char sheets? Or did the player know the DM? The DM seems to be the ends justifiy the means type of personalty so far, Although I tend to rather treating each person as a means onto them self.

I am not reading anywhere that the player knew there was to char sheets. The player seemed more concerned about on the spot changes according to the op


but said it was unfair for me to use another sheet.

Use just a little, and I mean very little, logic and reason. First, the quote above, which I actually took from a post of YOURS, flat out says the player knew there was another sheet and felt it was unfair. Tiny amount of logic time, why would he feel it was unfair? Why? Please tell me? The ONLY reason that makes any sense is that he knew what was on *at least* one of the sheets, likely the obsolete one on top.

[scurv]

Use just a little, and I mean very little, logic and reason. First, the quote above, which I actually took from a post of YOURS, flat out says the player knew there was another sheet and felt it was unfair. Tiny amount of logic time, why would he feel it was unfair? Why? Please tell me? The ONLY reason that makes any sense is that he knew what was on *at least* one of the sheets, likely the obsolete one on top.

...ok, The player seemed more concerned at first about on the spot changes. And at the end of it seemed to be upset at the second sheet. But if you wish to get an idea of why the player might of felt it was unfair, do a bit of back reading. If you still do not understand we can go over it step by step.

[Tsriel]

Isn't that the entire point of this, players complaining when their expectations aren't met?

Pretty much. Scurv seems to be caught as a minority at this junction. Maybe your games are lax about using player knowledge. It's not like that for everyone else.

To me, the big issue is *player knowledge*. The player really should've known better than to use any DM note, sheet, ect as a guideline for making a decision.

[scurv]

{Scrubbed}

[ArcturusV]

Now, the question is, what would have happened if the sheets weren't involved at all? Since that seems to be the crux of the complaint.

This guy beat the snot out of the monk before. So he, even In Character, should have felt confident and still made the challenge. Of course the monk still has improved since then. The OP even mentioned there was a bit where he pointed out to the guy, through description, that he had at least some new gear since last time (If the player was paying attention). So he would have still made the challenge. Been just as surprised that the scrub he beat before had new capabilities, and the same net result would have happened.

[Thunndarr]

In fact, Scurv, there seems to be a pretty simple explanation for the player's questions.

Player looks at the character sheet of the NPC he is expecting to duel. He knows with his recent upgrades, he can definitely defeat THIS character. So the duel is about to commence. Player verifies the DM won't be making any changes to the sheet he's seen. DM agrees. Betting commences. The Player, now feeling confident, decides to bet gear. DM uses the sheet he'd been planning on using all along. Player loses.

Note: in the above scenario, a non-cheater wouldn't have been affected. The cheater, by seeing the obsolete sheet and THEN changing the stakes of the bet, got the result they deserved.

[Ravenica]

Bah most of my players have less knowledge than my microwave... I have to remind them how to calculate an attack bonus every session. I havent had to worry about metagaming in a year :smalleek:

[Thunndarr]

...ok, The player seemed more concerned at first about on the spot changes. And at the end of it seemed to be upset at the second sheet. But if you wish to get an idea of why the player might of felt it was unfair, do a bit of back reading. If you still do not understand we can go over it step by step.

See my post above. You are really reaching here.

[Ravenica]

{Scrubbed}

[Tsriel]

Now, the question is, what would have happened if the sheets weren't involved at all? Since that seems to be the crux of the complaint.


That's the million gold question. Given the players prior habits, I'd venture to guess that he would've made the challenge anyway. Fair game at that point once terms are agreed and the duel has commenced.

[scurv]

Pretty much. Scurv seems to be caught as a minority at this junction. Maybe your games are lax about using player knowledge. It's not like that for everyone else.

To me, the big issue is *player knowledge*. The player really should've known better than to use any DM note, sheet, ect as a guideline for making a decision.

To me the issue is more the morals of the situation. I do not condone dishonest play from ether player or DM.

Now pulling a fast one from time to time is one thing, But if the player is in a situation were he is worried about on the spot changes I have to ask why?

As for using player knowledge, It is implied yes. But nothing proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is like the ethical situations shrinks have with the stock market. If they make it big in the stock market they will be investigated by the ethics board, And although the ethics board may not be able to prove guilt. The shrink is in a position where they have to prove innocence and in said situation that is something that can not be done.

[Thunndarr]

Now pulling a fast one from time to time is one thing, But if the player is in a situation were he is worried about on the spot changes I have to ask why?


This has been addressed. Your interpretation is hardly the only valid one. Nor is it even the most likely.

[Deathkeeper]

Now, the question is, what would have happened if the sheets weren't involved at all? Since that seems to be the crux of the complaint.

This guy beat the snot out of the monk before. So he, even In Character, should have felt confident and still made the challenge. Of course the monk still has improved since then. The OP even mentioned there was a bit where he pointed out to the guy, through description, that he had at least some new gear since last time (If the player was paying attention). So he would have still made the challenge. Been just as surprised that the scrub he beat before had new capabilities, and the same net result would have happened.


The background

Two sessions ago the PC challenged a Monk NPC/reserve PC that had been around for a while and lost.
Correction: the monk beat the snot out of HIM. He should have realized he might lose again.

[scurv]

This has been addressed. Your interpretation is hardly the only valid one. Nor is it even the most likely.

Well explain to me how it is not the most likely. Give me some meat in your response please and not empty rhetoric

[Waspinator]

It doesn't sound like the DM ever said that the sheet on top of the pile was the one he was using. If the players were surprised that it wasn't used, the logical conclusion is that they cheated by reading it and assumed that it WAS the monk's sheet.

[Thunndarr]

Well explain to me how it is not the most likely. Give me some meat in your response please and not empty rhetoric

Post #167, this page, me. Incidentally, I might ask the same of you.


In fact, Scurv, there seems to be a pretty simple explanation for the player's questions.

Player looks at the character sheet of the NPC he is expecting to duel. He knows with his recent upgrades, he can definitely defeat THIS character. So the duel is about to commence. Player verifies the DM won't be making any changes to the sheet he's seen. DM agrees. Betting commences. The Player, now feeling confident, decides to bet gear. DM uses the sheet he'd been planning on using all along. Player loses.

Note: in the above scenario, a non-cheater wouldn't have been affected. The cheater, by seeing the obsolete sheet and THEN changing the stakes of the bet, got the result they deserved.

[scurv]

In fact, Scurv, there seems to be a pretty simple explanation for the player's questions.

Player looks at the character sheet of the NPC he is expecting to duel. He knows with his recent upgrades, he can definitely defeat THIS character. So the duel is about to commence. Player verifies the DM won't be making any changes to the sheet he's seen. DM agrees. Betting commences. The Player, now feeling confident, decides to bet gear. DM uses the sheet he'd been planning on using all along. Player loses.

Note: in the above scenario, a non-cheater wouldn't have been affected. The cheater, by seeing the obsolete sheet and THEN changing the stakes of the bet, got the result they deserved.

It is a nice story. But the OP started this by naming it

Did I screw this player over?

And add to that the op also indicates that he has an axe to grind about the constant dualing. And the OP also indicates that the player draws up one char every 4 sessions. So that tends to give me some doubt as to that story. Add to this, Everything we know about that player is from the unbiased op. Do you believe everything you are told?

[Ravenica]

If there's no smoke there's definitely a cover up!

[Kyberwulf]

The naming of the Thread isn't really of importance.

He could be a new DM, and is worried about being unfair. Maybe all of his other players don't abuse the trust that they have. This being his first "Problem Pc," he might have thought he went to far. He might not be as Jaded as everyone else is as a GM.

[Thunndarr]

It is a nice story. But the OP started this by naming it


And add to that the op also indicates that he has an axe to grind about the constant dualing. And the OP also indicates that the player draws up one char every 4 sessions. So that tends to give me some doubt as to that story. Add to this, Everything we know about that player is from the unbiased op. Do you believe everything you are told?

LOL, and you have the gall to criticize my responses. If your opinion is that you're right because you feel the OP is a liar, the discussion is essentially at an end. Basically, we have the OP's post, and you saying, well, none of that really happened. Not much left to discuss, is there?

[Tsriel]

To me the issue is more the morals of the situation. I do not condone dishonest play from ether player or DM.

Now pulling a fast one from time to time is one thing, But if the player is in a situation were he is worried about on the spot changes I have to ask why?

As for using player knowledge, It is implied yes. But nothing proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is like the ethical situations shrinks have with the stock market. If they make it big in the stock market they will be investigated by the ethics board, And although the ethics board may not be able to prove guilt. The shrink is in a position where they have to prove innocence and in said situation that is something that can not be done.

Ethics boards hardly matter when the committee is only one member (aka The DM). Besides, many of those same meetings, justifiable cause is usually enough for the government to take your earnings anyway.

However, if you simply find the DM in this scenario to be dishonest. Then I'll state now that I disagree with you. As corny as it is, I refer to The Golden Rule. It may be haphazard for a DM to leave his notes out in the open, but its still up to the players to be respectful to not look. Player broke that, in turn DM gave enough rope for player to hang himself. Sounds like Golden Rule to me.

[Kyberwulf]

I just reread the OP.

It could be all a misunderstanding. This sounds like the Pc was wanting a Grudge match. He might of expected the monk to be the same as he was when he lost to the Monk the first time. When he made the deal to face the monk, he could have thought he was facing the same monk as he was. He could have been trying to make sure that the monk was the exact same by asking the GM.

So, maybe, he is only guilty of trying to metagame. Rather then outright cheating.

[Mutant Sheep]

I just reread the OP.

It could be all a misunderstanding. This sounds like the Pc was wanting a Grudge match. He might of expected the monk to be the same as he was when he lost to the Monk the first time. When he made the deal to face the monk, he could have thought he was facing the same monk as he was. He could have been trying to make sure that the monk was the exact same by asking the GM.

So, maybe, he is only guilty of trying to metagame. Rather then outright cheating.

Guilty of stupid metagaming by looking at the DM's papers, yeah.:smalltongue: He thought that the monk who was a backup PC would not have gotten new equipment, but he himself did get new equipment. He then used the DM notes and assumed that the monk was unchanged from last session asked if there would be any last minute changes to that character sheet, and needlessly dueled him. He lost because the monk had new equipment since before the session even began.:smallbiggrin:

[Kyberwulf]

Nah, I had players that failed to assume that people that defeated them in the past could get new gear. It wasn't them cheating or metagaming. They just simply forgot that Npcs exist when they aren't around.

[scurv]

If the DM has to result to coaxing an entrapment and a bait and switch tactics after the OP begins his statement by alluding to his axe to grind. It makes me question how capricious they are in the rest of their game.

Add to this, the player from all indications was going to dual the monk and took his loss in stride according to the op so in that regard I have trouble finding evidence that indicates willful meta gaming on the part of the player who by the ops own words seemed to handle it with maturity.

But my concerns is ethics of the situation. The DM is the one who sets the tone for the campaign, If the DM is going about it by using morally questionable tactics, Then how are the players suppose to adapt their chars to that world?

[ArcturusV]

Everyone knows NPCs only exist so long as I observe them!

[Ravenica]

Everyone knows NPCs only exist so long as I observe them!

Yeah but just reading a character sheet changes it!

[Scow2]

No, they only thought they knew. The DM had, previously, upgraded the monk's sheet. The sheet on top? That was no longer the monk's sheet. While certainly tricksy on the DM's part to bring along a sheet that had no more relevance to the game, it's still doesn't make him a liar, only a lawyer. If you're a player and you aren't listening carefully to what the DM is and is not saying, you are going to be taken for a ride by the very first devil your character meets.
I know this is from the first page, but it needs addressing... But the sheet on top WAS "The Monk's Sheet", as it had been used by the GM to play the monk, and, unless there was another monk of the exact same name and stats as what the monk had been before the 'new' sheet had been written up, it also unambiguously defined the character as the monk. Being on top of the stack also indicated that it was 'live'. So yes, the GM did change the sheet. In terms of fairness, I see it as roughly equivalent to, if the GM tries to reference the capabilities of his players in designing encounters, them turning in sheets of where there characters were last level instead of their current ones, and jumping the GM with updated sheets.

Yes, this is a case of 'blatant metagaming'. And yet, the metagame can be part of the campaign, emphasizing the "Game" part of "Role-Playing Game"(Which I feel far too many people forget). It may have been the player's understanding that the duel was going to be fair and transparent - The GM could see the player's sheet, and the player could see his opponent's sheet.

[Deathkeeper]

Add to this, the player from all indications was going to dual the monk and took his loss in stride according to the op so in that regard I have trouble finding evidence that indicates willful meta gaming on the part of the player who by the ops own words seemed to handle it with maturity.


How is peeking at the DM's notes not metagaming? Just because it's out in the open doesn't mean you're supposed to look. I don't try to hide my notebook in my games, but that doesn't mean my players are supposed to read it.
And the player is, according to the OP, NOT being very mature, considering he's challenging half the world's population to single combat.

[Kristinn]

You put that character sheet out specifically to trick the player. Yes, you screwed him over. Maybe he deserved it, but you did screw him over. Clear as day.

[TuggyNE]

I'm mostly just popcorning this thread, but…

Clear as day.

No, not really; the sheer amount of heated and utterly certain argument on precisely opposite sides should, by itself, tell you that it is not clear as day. If it was, this thread wouldn't be seven pages long already! :smalltongue:

You might have a point (I'm not really gonna argue one way or another much), but don't say "this is obvious", because it just isn't.

[gooddragon1]

Now, the question is, what would have happened if the sheets weren't involved at all? Since that seems to be the crux of the complaint.

Perfectly fine. The player would be making an irrational assumption to think that the monk had not improved and the DM would not be intentionally trying to mislead a player out of character.

Also, there's no such thing as a person who deserves to have their trust violated. And it doesn't "balance out to 0" if both the player and the DM do it, it sets each to -1 and everybody loses.

[RFLS]

When was the last time we heard from the OP? I'd like to hear what he has to say. Last I saw, he said the guy was chill with what happened and that the DM had no grudge against the player as a person. Any change in that? I skipped pages 3-5, but I suspect they're more of the same.

[Cirrylius]

Two sessions ago the PC challenged a Monk NPC/reserve PC that had been around for a while and lost. As a result he was without items, carrying a lot at that point as the result of the previous duels and such. One session ago he gained a lot of gold, than gambled it all to double it putting him over his WBL. The Monk NPC also added to his - now - very considerable gear as a result of another PC's actions. I informed the PC that he could spend the gold inbetween that session and the one that took place today. I also levelled the Monk and graded his gear up appropiatly.

Okay. Player challenges monk again, despite the fact that the monk now has all the player's original gear, plus whatever he had himself, plus (potentially) whatever other advancements the monk may have made in the meantime. Unless the player got some really sick items, stuff that boosted him well over his old stats, or if he was caught severely off-guard by the monk's tactics the first time, he should have been aware that the fight results wouldn't be hugely different from last time, i.e. a bare-fisted beatdown.


I started the game, we did some stuff, 30 minutes in he challenges the Monk. I ask him if he is sure, he asks me if I am going to make any changes. I tell him I will leave the Monk's sheet as it is.

I mentioned in passing that he was wearing a robe, which was the only new thing (everything else was either not visible or an upgrade of previous items). It was not like I pointed out his shining new robe though, it was more like, 'You see the Monk, wearing a robe.'

It sounds like the player knows his chances are still not strongly in his favor, and he's hoping the DM hasn't remembered to apply the new magic items to the monk's stats.


At first he is reluctant to fight for anything but honor, eventually he raises the stake to all his items vs. all those carried by the Monk.
Taken in conjunction with the player's earlier questions, it sounds like he satisfied himself that the monk didn't have any new surprises for him. Whether that came from the DM's description from him or sneaking a peek at NPC material is ambiguous, but considering how close the fight would have logically been at that point due to previous experience/magic item shuffling, I'd lean towards both. Also, considering the fight's evenness and the fact that it was all-or-nothing for items, the fact that the player didn't bother to do any other investigation into the monk's inventory is also suspect (admittedly this is speculation).


At that point I take the sheet on top, put it aside and take out the real Monk sheet from my papers. Laughter breaks out, but the PC in question is not happy.
First, the fact that you bothered to make two sheets in the first place indicates you were expecting shenanigans. Second, the player would've had no reason to be upset if he hadn't seen that the monk's dummy sheet was identical to his old one. Therefore he knew. Therefore he was cheating. What you did was provide the same game information to both the player and his character. In any case, if he didn't ask for more information on the encounter, considering the stakes, he got what was coming to him.

Did you screw him over? Not really, IMO. From the sound of it, you either knew he was cheating or he would cheat, and while it might have been a little more appropriate to handle the situation OOG (both his wandering eyes and his disruptive playstyle), that kind of tit-for-tat turnaround will probably leave a much more lasting impression. Personally I would've saved the character's life by fiat, but only because I get super involved with my characters and I don't like the idea of killing 'em (especially accidentally) to teach a player a lesson. Not on the first offense, anyway:smallamused:

[Deophaun]

I know this is from the first page, but it needs addressing... But the sheet on top WAS "The Monk's Sheet", as it had been used by the GM to play the monk
True. It's also true that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar WAS named the NBA's MVP in the 79-80 series. But, if I asked you who the current NBA MVP is, and you tell me it's Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, I'm going to think you've been frozen in ice for the past 30 odd years.

Being on top of the stack also indicated that it was 'live'.
OK, I'm looking at my DMG. Where is this 'live' thing that you speak of? Or should I be looking at one of my M:TG rule books? Is there a discard pile I should also be aware of? Do we tap the character sheets we're using, or is that only after we take our turns?

So yes, the GM did change the sheet.
Yes. He changed it before they sat down to play, before he agreed not to change it on the spot. Again, if he changed it back to the other sheet, that would have violated the agreement. And I'm sure you would join scurv in lighting the torches and brandishing the pitchforks over that lie.

In terms of fairness, I see it as roughly equivalent to, if the GM tries to reference the capabilities of his players in designing encounters, them turning in sheets of where there characters were last level instead of their current ones, and jumping the GM with updated sheets.
Really? So you play sessions where players are expected to view the DM's campaign material, or where DMs are disallowed access to the player's active sheets? That's a first.

It may have been the player's understanding that the duel was going to be fair and transparent - The GM could see the player's sheet, and the player could see his opponent's sheet.
So, your opinion is that the player, being an idiot, thought an idiot thing, didn't listen to the DM, and so the DM should feel bad, because expecting a PC to make a Spot check before he initiates a completely optional and tangential activity in a scheme to get rich quick is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unfair. Got it.

[Zerter]

Okay, so wow, this went to seven pages. I read everything and without quoting anyone in particular met me answer some of the questions:

The Monk is a DMPC. He also was made too strong for the player to duel.
The Monk was actually introduced as a PC for a session where one of the players could not make it. He has been around for the purpose of being used again for the same reason or for if the PC that played him died. The way he leveled and gained items is consistent with the way all NPCs do, though he in his case he had a lot to spend. He was made stronger, but not at all unbeatable, the PC was one standard action away from killing him. I had also mentioned specifically he would be leveling.

The player should not have been killed.
I agree with this, I tried to prevent it, but the player pushed for it to happen. I asked him to inform me when he was dying, but because he remained conscious while dying he said he never was. Then the Monk hit him for 20 damage. I wanted to use DM fiat to save the character, but the player insisted he was dead. The fact is that the way we play, he was right. The dices land where they roll. I think the fact he loves his back-up character might also have something to do with it. Not to mention that the beforementioned curse messed with his character a lot. He refused to be brought back.

Why did he insist I make no changes to the sheet?
I speculate, but I think he sensed it was too good to be true. The first duel the Monk caught him off-gaurd. The second time he was prepared. If the Monk had remained unchanged, it would be a walk over. A walk over that would make very wealthy. In his mind the logical step for me would be to change the sheet. On the other hand it would also be ''in-character'' for me to let him beat the Monk and take the items. I would be worried about the party balance, but it would have been fair.

About the player in general.
I want to point out I highlighted one thing that happened at the table yesterday. The player is great to have around and would make a worthwile contribution to any group. I mean, you could dedicate a bunch of threads to stupid things I did in D&D and it would make me look really bad.

[TuggyNE]

Okay, so wow, this went to seven pages. I read everything and without quoting anyone in particular met me answer some of the questions:
[… snip …]

Nice post. Now to see what you rolled on your CL check for dispel misconception…. :smallamused:

[Clericzilla]

I'm going to say you probably didn't do anything that wrong, BUT:

There are two messages that can be taken away from this session:

1. How do you like a taste of your own medicine? Can we agree now that metagaming is bad and not do it anymore.

2. See, I can metagame too. Feel free to metagame, I just hope you can do it better than me.

You need to decide which message you were trying to send, and then make sure that was the message the player, and indeed the whole group, recieved.

There is a unspoken rule in my games, anything the players use (metagame/cheese) can and will be used by the DM.

You can cheat all you want, if you get caught then the DM will cheat to.

You can metagame if you want, if you get caught then the DM will metagame too.

Oh trying to get Pun Pun are you? Sadly a Kobold walks up and smites you on the face with a rolled up newspaper.

It has worked out pretty well so far XD, it keeps both the player and DM in check.

[Sugashane]

He tried to cheat and lost. you did nothing wrong. Had he not tried to look off your paper, he would likely not have been so emboldened to make a high wager. He could have even asked if he saw _______ items on your person.

Something like that would have went WAY worse in my groups. DM cheese for cheating is always a factor for punishment. We had a somewhat similar situation, where a player had been looking at the other's sheet before attacking him, claiming it was for a disrespect paid to him earlier (a difference of opinion on a party choice was all, he wanted the Belt of Magnificence and a few other neat items). As he charged for the attack in the middle of the street, a man walking by and smoking poked him.... and cast imprisonment. Will save was terrible. "Congratulations, you just tried to attack a man from behind and charge past Gwyndalin, the archwizard of Baron, devout follower of Heironeous (who was a real ex-PC who resides in that city). Your lack of honor, chivalry, and valor was met with the proper justice."

We all lost it as he sat there slack jawed in shock.

[sktarq]

Simple key to this one. Was the old monk NPC sheet put out with the goal of the PC seeing it? If it just happened to be part of a stack of notes and perhaps even put on top because it was obsolete and had little value to the DM thus covering and protecting notes that were still valuable-then you (the OP) are fine. You did nothing wrong. There was not bait and switch - which requires "bait" to be used as a verb. I think many people are assuming the OP did this on purpose which is a common assumption but not necessarily true.
Not everything is part of a plan.

I think scurv is wrong here. to acknowledge that one's actions could be taking the wrong way and circumstance may have led one towards a more morally grey area (where intent starts becoming important) is not a sign that one is dishonest. Particularly is a DM knows that they may be biased due to circumstances external to the situation in question (in this case annoyance for the repeated - probably game disrupting - duals). In fact it is a sign that a DM is on guard against such action as is more fair and honest, not less.

as for the "last minute changes" a very obvious two things pops to mind. - One: if the DM acknowledges that the monk would have gotten new equipment but hadn't yet done the sheet rewrite in time between sessions it is likely that the player may assume that the DM would update the sheet when he has need of it thus negating his advantage over the sheet he has seen.
Two. deceitful people are highly inclined to believe that all other people are just as underhanded as they are and guard against it. This is even more true when a person is in the process of deceit. It is a decent (but by no means fullproof) way of detecting deceit. It is human nature on that. Knowing that he is cheating by reading the sheet the player is more likely to assume that the DM will cheat too.

[TexAvery]

This was an entertaining thread. I think the DM handled it perfectly.

[Xerxus]

The tradition is once again upheld by many playgrounders, rushing to the defense of the player, ignoring what the DM has to say and making them look like the bad guy.

If he had accidentally left the old monk page there and forgotten it, the exact same chain of events would have followed. His intent is therefore irrelevant - the player attempted to metagame and made an unwise decision. It was probably pretty fun to watch and though the DM might have felt guilty since it led to the PCs death, that was not his fault. A character based on duelling everyone and taking their stuff is pretty much screwed, metagame or not.

[Deathra13]

Alright havent read the whole thread but the pages I have read lead me to wonder how many of those defending the player also demand the gm not have a screen up and roll all dice in the open. I have met many dms who use whatever is convenient to screen their notes, often times this includes Old Notes. Now If he had a screen and left this on the other side this is absolutely screwing the player no argument their. If on the other hand he A) does have a screen and the notes are on the side of it the players Arent supposed to be on then it was kind of overkill to put old notes on top of it but apparently justified since he cant trust his players to stay on their side of the screen. Or B) if he had no screen and put that up simply to cover his notes then its the players issue if he decides to read whats on top as impacting the game.

Bait and switch is a standard of dming when dealing with players who cant be trusted around notes, otherwise the dm has to either never leave the table, take all his notes with him everywhere, or never plot anything that requires even the slightest degree of secrecy.

As for direct punishment of Rocks fall you die, what the dm did is considerably more fair, the player still had a chance of victory since the dice are fickle, in the outright kill for cheating mentality you may get the lesson across more clearly but suddenly the player is out a character he has put a lot of work into.

[ArcturusV]

Nice post. Now to see what you rolled on your CL check for dispel misconception…. :smallamused:

I'm going to guess in the neighborhood of Natural 1.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Thread locked for review.