wrote:Really, this one is easy, because you have the rules on your side, and the player has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He has nothing legitimate to complain about that you busted him. If you wanted to be a little mean about it, you could even slap him with a negative level for a couple of sessions as a penalty from the gods for cheating, or sic an Inevitable on his character -- enforcing the law is what they do, after all.
In-game DM fiat: the solution to OOC problems that every shy, socially disfunctional DM needs!
On the topic: "he is the only person that is effective in combat"
Um... forget the fact that he's breaking the ruies for a second, if the only person who's managing to actually fight worth a crap in your game is a guy who's cheating out the ass, I think you might need to review how you're runing your game first.
Also you don't fight cheating and metagaming with more cheating and metagaming... you fight it by smacking the player in the head with the largest rule book you have and telling him to knock it the hell off and to fix his sheet.
On the subtopic: I think they're doing it in hopes that they'll get to watch somone get ticked off, about whatever bloody stupid thing a DnD writer said this week, in an enteraining manner.
fbmf at [unixtime wrote:1172880627[/unixtime]][TGFBS] Guests are still allowed to post in this forum. Please respect that. [/TGBFS]
But this isn't a Guest, this is someone slipping unsigned notes under the door.
They're interesting notes, but they mean no more to me than Zodiac encryption. I don't know what they're referring to, I don't know if they're from the same place, and I don't know where they're going.
The posts are like incomplete sentences - and are unsigned on top of it.
"Oh, look, a sixth level rogue with too many skill points and extra feats. This is obviously such a great and complicated problem that I must write a letter asking for advice."
I get the impression this person should not be DMing.
1) I'd do what the author noted in the previous paragraph in the article than was noted above - talk to the player first and let them know that kind of activity isn't appreciated at the game.
2) Now, this is where I diverge from the article. I wouldn'tbe throwing around negative energy levels, but I'd probably discuss it with the rest of the group if I was the DM. If everybody likes cheating like that - then no harm and no foul - I'd just have to adjust my DMing accordingly. (I guess if it was to the point that I wasn't having fun DM, I'd probably have to decide whether I'd really want to game with that group any longer) If the rest of the group was disappointed with the continual cheating from the player to the point that it wasn't fun to them any longer, I'd hold over the player after a gaming session and just let them know that maybe they should find another group where such activities are permitted. Yeah, I know - somewhat of a hardass about it, but if their cheating is dragging down the enjoyment of the rest of the group, then something has to give.
3) I'm thinking that the player is eventually going to have to leave the group; my experience has been that people don't like being cheated with, whether as a fellow player or a DM.
4) I'm thinking that the autho's intent was to show taht as the DM you have the authority to dole out punishment as required. However, like Frank has highlighted in another thread when it comes to spellbook removal by DM, just because something is valid and legal doesn't mean your gaming group is going to be immune to the illwill that such an action usually fosters. As a DM, you have to appreciate that sometimes the wise action is better that the rules-legal action.
