praguepride:
HOWEVER I really really hate meta gaming. In my group one guy plays a lot of games and he found the book of the main adventure I built my game off of and I can tell almost every other decision he's making is because he has OOC knowledge. If one path takes you to horrible death and the other path takes you to fantastic treasure he just happens to "guess" the right path every. single. time.
I assume your exaggerating about the consequences of those choices and that it's more like easy outcomes vs. hard outcomes.
Some games, though, set themselves up to be metagamed in this way, where it's really just a matter of getting something right or wrong ahead of time. The situation is one that can be solved.
What if the situation is one in which there were difference dangers and different treasures, but every treasure is behind a danger? In that case, it wouldn't seem to matter as much whether or not players knew what their choices would lead to, since there would be trouble and commesurate reward following any choice.
praguepride:
Luckily I know this ahead of time and so I randomly determine stuff behind the scenes and when stuff doesn't go the way he thinks it should he can get kind of pissy.
A bit of a side issue, but why play with such a person, if they're known to be like that? If one has to play with them (which so often seems to be the case, when a person is a close friend or it's their house, or something) going to lengths to aggravate them seems like it's just going to make things worse. What do they say when asked why they are doing what they're doing? Do they want to play a different game, or an easier game?
praguepride:
Knowing what is going to happen is one thing but altering your character's behavior and more importantly ruining surprises and adventure for other players is not acceptable, in my opinion and that is the REAL problem with meta-gaming.
Surprises I don't care about. The drive to provide those is one of the major problems with this hobby. Different topic.
How does he ruin the adventure for them, though?
praguepride:
When ONE player knows the solution to every problem and/or has twinked out his character to the utmost level then it can quickly detract from other player's fun. Few people want to play a game where they are just a warm body along for the ride.
Why are they just along for the ride? I presume they have a say in the matter, and could overrule this person if they wanted. If they don't, then they're somewhat responsible for ruining their own adventure, in which case one wonders if they might also want to play a different game or an easier game.
I like to play cooperative boardgames. It's usually not easy to know exactly what's going to happen, but skilled and experienced gamers can have a tendency to take control of such games and basically play them solo, just instructing the others what to do. That can be a drag. However, choice is much more constrained in such games, and there are rarely real "roles" to play, and the outcomes are either a win, a loss or (at best) a close game. In a roleplaying game, avoiding trouble doesn't need to mean the same thing as a win, if the trouble is fun to get into.
praguepride:
It was awesome because it forced the meta-gamer to actually RP realistically that he DIDN'T KNOW what was going to happen!
Did the meta-gamer enjoy that?
One might presume that you don't care whether or not they enjoyed it, that it was enough for everyone else to enjoy it, and maybe even a bonus to cause the meta-gamer consternation (assuming that was the result).
We're dealing with a key aspect of psychology here: people don't like to play dumb when it's to their detriment. I've played with people who, even if their character doesn't disbelieve something the player knows to be false, will still poke around the edges and try to come up with reasons why their character wouldn't believe something. This behavior intensifies the more it seems like the PCs are being led to their doom.
So, I think it depends a lot on what's at stake. The more a scenario puts a player's or party's enjoyment (whatever that means in a given case) at stake, the more they're going to be pushed into a meta-mindset. GMs often set themselves up to be metagamed, and often not for a heck of a lot potential benefit. It's worth asking oneself if people are likely to metagame a particular situation, and then, if they are, altering things not to foil the metagaming, but to make metagaming unnecessary.
horus:
Every player in the game should get rule no. 1 (The GM is never wrong. If the GM is wrong, see rule no. 1.)
Goodness, GMs are wrong all the time.
horus:
That he gets bent out of shape when you throw him a curve marks him as rather a childish gamer. Most gamers worth their salt enjoy a challenge.
Of course, but not every challenge is enjoyable to every person. This is one of the key things GMs get wrong: just because something is a challenge doesn't mean anyone is going to enjoy dealing with it.
This guy might be immature, but it's risky to dismiss it as that entirely. Maybe he just wants a different challenge. I hope he has been asked.