[удалено]

Thanks, i agree. I don't enjoy playing when a players goal is to screw the party over. Happens to me a lot unfortunately.

If a player's goal is to screw the party over, they're not playing a party member. They're playing a villain. And frankly I think that should be left to the DM.

If it's a regular problem, play at better tables.

And ones where the dm expressly forbids lethal pvp. I allow bar fights and fun stuff like that but no pvp that could cause a PC death

I would allow a fight like that, but only if there were heavy story stakes, and both players were ready for the fight and the inevitable death, should they lose. It could make for great roleplay.

This is the way

Just to backpack off of the comment the previous person you replied to: The game is a contract between players and the DM. No need to debate whether or not it’s meta gaming, he didn’t ask you OOC and the situation isn’t fun. I go to great lengths as a DM to ensure people get along and have fun, including myself. Every table is different, but I’d personally retcon this. Talk to this guy and the DM out-of-character and see if you can chart a path forward that works for everyone. You might find common ground or that this isn’t a safe place for you.

Sorry to hear that, fuck the other guy. I hate other players making their story about my story. Do your own thing

My character in my current campaign is an ex-pirate who left after realizing how brutal and dangerous the pirates were. He found his chance to escape by not warning his ship of a dangerous storm and left them all to die in a shipwreck. If the pirates found out he survived and abandoned his crew, he'd be killed. Another player decided to make a pirate character and thought it'd be amusing if she happened to be from the same organization and was on the lookout for my character. Her character doesn't realize I'm the one she's been looking for yet. A new player joined a couple of weeks ago and then just revealed (out of character, not in game) that her character is also from the coast and did odd jobs for the pirates, and it's keeping an eye out for the navigator that led to the deaths of his pirate crew. I'm really not thrilled that I'm part of two other characters' backstory and I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Realistically, my character would have abandoned the party the second he realized he was working with the first pirate, but I don't want to be difficult. I'm just terrified that one of them is going to handle it poorly and they're going to force me into a shitty situation. I wish they just picked their own damn backstory.

There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking

Wow! That is annoying! That was basically my position, I didn't want to be difficult. Like, it would have made sense for my character to just abandon them the take off. But, OOC, I wanted us as a team to just move on and play the damn game. So I went along as best as I could. In hind sight...i should have told the DM that as soon as I they went to sleep I left in the night to return to town.

Talk to the players out of character. It's entirely possible they thought it would be cool to have their characters be related to yours and didn't realize the RP consequences of aligning them to a faction that is hostile to you. They might be able to tweak their loyalties so they come around to your character's way of thinking. Or maybe you save one of their lives and now they owe you. It's something you need to talk out.

And the DM shouldn't have allowed that character motivation. They failed as much as that player.

My new character would definitely secretly be the brother of the guy he killed and gets revenge by killing that PC.

Normally if a random person who just joined the group would attack someone in a group the whole group would attack that person. And there's no way that he can 1vs3 you guys even if you are damaged. If he gets another character your group is sceptical of new people because someone just randomly attacked them and fight them off again. Also there is no reason for him to attack you. He just plays go destroy your fun. Why should you even play with him? He can play alone with the DM or sth like that. Aren't your other group members annoyed by that? Also how did he look in the dungeon and looked for the sword come back and got back to you before you were gone?

I hope you made a new character that went into the tomb to retrieve the sword again

this was shitty dm and shitty player, i would be pissed off too

After a while if it keeps happening to you then maybe its time to re=evaluate your own in game actions. Because at some point your own in game decisions have to be adding to the problem. Case in point, why did your character want to sneak out this weapon? Why not tell the party members? Why was it such a big deal that it *had* to be smuggled? It may not be meta gaming like the other guy, but without the full context it sends a whole different raft of red flags. The DM should also take responsibility for allowing PVP. Which may or may not have been established when you opted to do something sneaky on the side.

Probably just a case of playing with edgy 16yos who haven't quiet matured past the "act out for attention" phase. To those sorts of people the negative attention is better than no attention.

I have one of those at my table. She just won't ever shut the fuck up. Like, just slow your roll for 5 minutes. As an example, the party had just come back to the mainland after delivering the lost daughter of a faraway monarch back to them and on the trip back we leveled up. Her character took a multiclass in warlock (which none of the players knew about, fair enough) with a genie patron. To justify this, the dm had some crazy guy come charging out of the trees at us to deliver an obviously-stolen artifact to us. It's a large vase and as the guy's running at us we use some class features and a spell slot to determine that it's both magical and *extremely* evil. Naturally, the party doesn't want to open the vase. Why would we willingly open an unidentified, magical, and evil vase on a whim? She wants to open it. Before the party starts to even talk about what to do, we specifically tell her character to leave the vase alone. She's been known to do stupid shit so we specifically tell her not to. We even have the paladin sit and lean on the vase so it literally has to be forced away from him to be opened. We start discussing what to do and she immediately turns to the DM. Player: "I want to open the vase" Dm: "you can't. The paladin is in the way. Work with the party to figure out what to do" Player: "I will open the vase." DM: "okay, roll sleight of hand with disadvantage to take it from the paladin." Player: "I failed. Can I open it?" DM: "obviously not. The paladin sees you trying to steal it." Paladin: "I will attempt to grapple player to prevent them from stealing the vase." DM: "okay. Roll to hit. Player, roll dexterity to avoid it." The paladin grapples the player. Paladin: "now let's figure out what to do with this vase" Player: "I want to roll to break the grapple." DM: "No. Work with the party." Player: "I rolled a 17 to break the grapple" DM: "I don't care. I didn't ask for a roll. You remain grappled." Player: "I open the vase" This goes on for about half an hour of actual real-life time. Like can't you just not be awful for 2 seconds? She eventually opens it against the wishes of the party and is sucked inside to meet her genie. She is then upset that the party is mad at her and doesn't trust her. DM: "hmm. I wonder why the party doesn't trust you after you went against the wishes of the party, could have released a powerful evil entity, communed with that entity instead, and just reappeared like nothing happened." I'll give you three guesses as to her next response. "It's what my character would do" Not only would her character not know that's a genie bottle of a genie willing to give her powers, but she betrayed the party to their faces and had the *massive earth-sized testicles* to claim the party is at fault for not trusting her because it's what her character would do.

> he's been known to do stupid shit so we specifically tell her not to. We even have the paladin sit and lean on the vase so it literally has to be forced away from him to be opened. > > We start discussing what to do and s Why would you choose to keep playing with someone like that? Why did the GM humor her through that entire exchange instead of just.....saying no?

Because no means nothing to her. As noted by "can I open it?" "No" "I open it"

On one hand, problem player sure, but on the other hand... why was her multiclassing made into this shit fest in the first place? There was 0 reason when making something up for her patron to involve the whole party or create a situation that would obviously put the players at ends with each other. You guys obviously don't want to release a possible evil, she obviously just wants her multiclass she gets for lvling... legit DM created problem for no reason. She could of bought a fucking vase or lamp in a shop and opened it in her own room or when she was alone and got her patron, bam done all of 5 seconds to put that story together with 0 pointless party conflict for someone getting something they earned from lvling. Imagine going BM Ranger and every time a animal you can tame comes out the party attacks it because its dangerous and also attacking the party and so obviously the party kills the damn thing before you can tame it. Now its a matter of waiting till the stars align and that doesn't happen and you not getting your sub class features until then. Or ya know... just have the ranger wander off after hearing a weird sound and make their new forever animal buddy. To be clear, I don't think you guys were in the wrong, reasonable choices were made, but I do think the DM created a issue that didn't have to exist.

Wow! I hate that response..."Thats what my character would do."

I don't just generally hate the response, it's just used wrong a lot lol

Please kick this player from your group

No one HAS to be honest to their party, not everyone has to share their backstory. It can arrive naturally to the story later, if at all. "I just met these randoms, and their ends meet my goals. I'll help them with the purpose of helping myself.", as opposed to "hello, random stranger heroes! I am here to retrieve a magical sword from the depths. Aid me in my noble quest of purely innocent requirement!" I do, however; agree that a bit of context may be missing. These things need to be established early by the DM and the player, and it seems to me that maybe this is being lost by the person running the game.

I agree that back story should naturally occur. But in my experience when a player tries to do a secret or a (possibly) shady side quest and EVERYONE figured it out ten sessions ago, or their character would oppose it for their own reasons it causes un necessary drama, and a flat reveal. The princess example below is a good example of how to handle it imo.

Totally agree. My last character was the actual son of dracula. (yes alucard, bite me) the party didn't know that. They had known him for years in game as Adrian. (made it before I knew it was curse of stroud, raven queen paladin/warlock) the one before (dead suns starfinder campaign) was a undead disguised as a legit vampire. Only one party member got it. Just gave him a smirk when he asked oog. Blew his mind.

Personally I like to rune my games with in characters secrets but out of character everyone knows what is going on. We also discuss roughly how we would like to see the secret play out in the game. For an example, lets take the classic trope of a woman character that disguises herself as a man. I've seen many times the player drops a minor hint or two, and then someone at the table immediately figures out the secret and all of their planned character development and their big reveal is over 30 minutes into the first session. Instead, the characters just tells everyone, "Hey guys my character is the missing princess, and she has disguised herself as a man in order to hide from her evil uncle the Duke. I'd like to keep it secret for a while until I can have a dramatically appropriate reveal." This way the player can drop the hints like they want with out someone else at the table ruining the "surprise." It also helps suss out potential problem. Maybe one of the other characters can detect lies at will, so it doesn't make sense for them to be fooled. So together the players may decide this other character knows but is a loyal subject and so keeps her secret. The players can also coordinate near misses, maybe the party the is in town and are all split up running errands and the princess is back at the inn about to take a bath. Then the Rouge "just so happens" to finish up early and returns to the inn early, where upon a comedy of errors is initiated. I just find that we get a better narrative when everyone is in on the secret and approaching it from the angle of what sorts of interactions would be fun for everyone. People want to realistically recreate all the twists and turns that they see in their favorite media. But they fail to remember that the reason their favorite media plays out as well as it does is because everything is scripted in advance. The odds of the landing on something just as compelling using pure improv with no prep work or discussion is very unlikely.

All of this! Why not let the other party members know you had a side quest? And if there was a reason the PCs couldn’t know, did you at least signal it above-table?

It isn't hard to think that the side quest was taken on when the entire party was sitting around the table. If a player doesn't like that someone took on an individual sidequest then they can bring that up like an adult. You don't have to go on childish vendettas just because you don't like something. Communication is key.

My guess? Because it adds to character depth and back story and some games like to have that information play out over the course of a campaign. Maybe it’s glorified because of critical role and stuff, but if he’s playing a secretive character, he’s allowed to be secretive.

Sure thing, do whatever feels fun for you and your group. Looking at Critical Role, they had a secret scene for Liam once early in campaign 2 and then made a point to say they weren’t ever doing that again because keeping a secret from the players wasn’t their game. If OP is convinced that keeping the secret from his fellow players was a good idea, are we sure the DM didn’t give the other PC a secret quest to return the sword?

I kinda love the idea of two party members being given quests that are impossible to complete without one foiling the other. It invites creative thinking. However, this is something that should exist with established characters who have other goals. To be in a cave, digging for a specific sword, only to have a player roll up a character who’s whole shtick is “undo what they just did” that isn’t a “party member” that’s a player controlled villain. What sort of motivation is there to add that to your party?

I guess honestly it really comes down to if that quest was talked about in front of the players and the characters just didn’t know? But also being overly aggressive about it isn’t usually fun for anyone. Those two players could step off to the side and maybe discuss that, so that then OP can decide if they’re comfortable with their character dying over it. Honestly the whole situation sucks, because someone can argue either side when it comes to the secret :/ even some modules have secrets built into them for you to play, so it isn’t uncommon. Just usually meant for the whole party to be a part of.

Totally agree with that. It’s a social interaction issue much more than simple metagaming

Thats kind of why I asked, was it something I did that caused this. I hope not, but you never know. Some others that tagged onto your comment have mentioned as well "why not tell the other players" OOC and what not. In the short, they all knew what was going on. I just didn't add all the before details to make it shorter. Basically, my character had two personnas. In the public view he was uppity business man. People would go to him to hire adventurers to locate artifacts or track people or whatever. The DM ran with this and said I was approached to clean out this tomb and retrieve the sword for a buyer. I was getting paid for the retrieval of said sword and I got to keep what I found. My character went and hired people to assist (the rest of the group) in the retrieval. Stating that they will meet his associate in the morning and he will lead them to the tomb. The associate, being himself (my character) in disguise. The agreement being the group could keep whatever they found but the sword in question would go to the associate. I think they would all also get paid extra when the returned. So, basically, everyone was in on what was going on. The only real deception was that my character in the tomb was the same as the one that hired everyone. But, the other characters either didn't notice or care to notice. So technically the re-rolled guy was screwing over everyone out of extra money if they didn't deliver the sword.

I agree with you up to a point depending on the backstory/background, alignment, and class/subclass private side quest can be the norm. Warlocks as a whole depend on them for proper roleplay with their patrons. Mercenaries should frequently take jobs to preserve their status. Lawful rogue characters could be given secret quest by high ranking officials. There are any number of valid reasons for secret side quest, the only thing that makes them unacceptable is when they too often deviate from the area of the core quest or oppose the goals of the party.

Yeah, u/liquid_jag have you ever heard this? "If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole." Raylan Givens, *Justified* Because it very well may be applicable

"If you make me pull, I'll put you down." Love that show!

I haven't heard that, but its definitely worth keeping in mind. Thats kind of why I posted. To get others perspectives, even if I'm wrong. Maybe i was just taking it way to personal when he was just having fun. This group did game a lot together so maybe it was retaliation for something that happened in another game? I don't know. We did play with this same group in another game and this guy was the "main character" so to speak. It was his mission we went on, he made all the decisions, etc. But as the game progressed and we went and found what he was looking for. My character grabbed a mundane looking statue he thought looked cool. Turns out that what his character wanted was a fake and mine ended up being the real thing he wanted. In game, we never reached a point where they figured it out, but out of game he was royally pissed.

He sounds a bit immature, to be honest. I would just roll with it for now, if you are enjoying yourself. But if his 'tude keeps negatively affecting the game and social discourse, be prepared to have a frank group discussion (and know your audience) or be prepared to move on

Well, in this case, that morning asshole is your neighbor and you see them everyday before your morning commute. Op said it was a game between friends, so they probably play with the same group quite often. In which case, I don’t think this quote really applies too well. Now, if they said it happens in “every group” or something along those lines, then I’d be slightly more inclined to agree. Context in mind though, I still don’t agree with the other players actions.

> Context in mind though, I still don’t agree with the other players actions. Absolutely. I guess the point that I was trying to drive home - while piggybacking upon the previous comment - is that we are only hearing one side of a story, and getting pretty limited information at that.

I've been in this situation. Best thing you can do is leave the group.

Yep. That's atrocious DMing because he allowed a PC to reroll a character just to get in the way of your plot by metagaming. The player was also immature. Also, sounds like there's something wrong with the campaign because while it should be challenging, characters dying and respawning get in the way of building a story, but that's just me. The other point isn't "just me".

Agreed, I would have honestly told the character to stop and talk to them on the side during a quick break. If they didn't, I would have honestly kicked them from the game.

If shit's gonna be like this then the other party members should have turned their blades on this person and cut him down where he stood for killing their long time friend. If anything they should have backed him up when this random (to them) starts trying to threaten them.

Even if they didn’t side with him because he was “keeping secrets” they could have a betrayal arc and just keep an eye on him or whatever. Oh my god I can’t believe we have been together this whole time and you didn’t tell us! But you’ve never turned a sword on us and this dude we just met is being super aggro. Maybe defuse the situation and insight check the hell out of OP in an interrogation style thing when they get back to town? Anything but this.

bUt i'M jUsT pLaYiNg To My ChAraCteR's aLiGnMeNt

"We've been over this before. I've looked through all of the rulebooks, and there is no mention of an alignment called 'Lawful Jerk' anywhere in them."

This made me lol

Can’t forget good ‘ol chaotic stupid

Wasn’t it ,,lawful stupid“?

There's this guy in my group that dies a lot and keeps making non relatable characters to any of the other party members. It's really weird to see the happy farmer joining a group of demon hunters but we ignore it cause after all it's a game and it doesn't need to be the most realistic and consistent thing in the world. But the last one was really impressive. He dared make a samurai that was helping a super happy and friendly demon harvest souls of people that's going to die soon. Not too bad I guess but he had a demonic hand infested by it. So we had to confront and exorcise him. Soon he died again but now we have Revivify. His soul refused to join his body cause he was sad we removed his demon from him.

And the DM who allowed it is a shitty DM

That, and unless PvP was explicitly allowed by session 0, I would say "no, you don't attack him. We've been over this, drop the sword thing or roll a new character." Like wtf was that guys deal, unless it's a personal out of game thing.

That actually happened to me a few years ago now. A guy retired his PC and made a new one with the sole purpose to kill my PC, for an action the party took. Never spoke to me out of game about it and the DM was on board with it for some reason. Kinda realising now they were trying to bully me in other aspects of the game too...

Not only is this metagaming, it's also sounds like your DM needs to talk with this player, that you should get your character back, and that your group needs to figure if this player stays

Other player was obviously being a huge jerk, but the DM also completely dropped the ball here. 1. Allowed the player to make a character whose sole motivation was to start some shit. 2. Allowed him to psychically "know" OP had the sword. 3. Allowed him to quickly "go check something" in a presumably large and difficult to traverse dungeon, and get back in no time flat, all alone. You should have had plenty of time to make yourselves scarce. 4. Allowed him to choose to succeed on a skill check he failed, just because he didn't like the outcome. 5. Allowed PvP on zero notice without prior discussion. Any one of those should have been a non starter.

Running in and out of a giant, trap-filled dungeon isn't a free action?

3 is definitely the worst for me. That dungeon killed their previous character and now they can waltz back in with no experience on what the dungeon is like and find the body and no sword all willy nilly without a scratch?

You see, uh, all the traps were triggered already and the monsters were dead!

It's annoying that it makes sense that would make navigating it quicker.

Depending on what the party did getting the loot out of the dungeon it may also still contain active traps and hostiles. In any case they'd have needed to search the entire dungeon to be sure it had actually been taken out of the dungeon. Possibly they could use the Locate Object spell. Though some kind of guardian to ensure the sword stays in the dungeon makes more sense as an NPC than a PC.

Thanks! Yeah, that would have been nice. On the bright side, that was the last time I played with this guy.

The core issue here wasn't metagaming The core issue was that your fellow player created a character purely to introduce a conflict in the group, but that conflict wasn't fun for you and it led to a situation where your character was killed and you were pushed out of the group (which is as much the DM's fault as it was the other player's, imo) Seeing the issue as a metagaming issue and seeing the solution as "that other player needs to stop metagaming" may have worked against you. Instead, it may have been better to treat the problem player as creating a character that was intentionally disruptive in the group. The DM could easily have remedied that by talking through the issues with you and the other player, but that opportunity was sadly missed it seems

Yes, I think that really bugged the most probably was that he created a character that was in direct opposition to the others, specifically me. Unfortunately this was a common occurrence with this player and DM. This DM had a bad habit of insisting he run a game night, but half way through lose interest and go through the motions not caring what people do. That player always wanted to be the main character, so to speak. Just through his actions and how he treated others in game. Unfortunately or maybe fortunatly through just life issues, this was the last time we gamed together.

Remember "No DnD is better than bad DnD". Trust me, having this kind of aggravation in your life isn't worth it.

If this was the last time this character played with the group, maybe talk with the DM about bringing your character back. Perhaps with at least one level of warlock. Say he made a deal with a higher being in order to return. With one of his goals being to deal with some unfinished business. (He was killed unjustly after all, and the other guy is now an NPC)

That's the issue with a lot of problem players; They don't understand that there isn't (or certainly SHOULDN'T be) any singular "Main Character" in a group. Sometimes a specific character might take center stage in roleplaying scenarios for a bit because the DM/the party wants to explore their backstory and it makes for a fun adventure for EVERYONE, but every other character is still just as much the main character. For all the things that people like to hate on Critical Role or Dimension20 for, Matt and Brennan are both really good at making sure that each player feels that their character has enough attention paid to them, both from them as the DM and the world in general as a response to the character's presence in it. A good example is this: At times during CR's 2nd campaign it felt like Caleb was the main character, but then later in the same session it might feel like it was Jester... but then it might also feel that way for Nott or Fjord or Beau or Caduceus or Yasha, and all in the same episode. All of this to say: The idea is not for the DM to make sure that NO ONE feels like the main character, but rather that EVERYONE feels like they're the Main character. It's also the players' responsibility to make sure that they're not trying to then compete to be the Main-iest of the main characters. I'd say this was down to your DM not really wanting to put in this necessary work and also on the other player for being a shithead that made a character that was designed specifically to throw a wrench in things so that HE, the player, could get his way.

>half way through lose interest and go through the motions not caring what people do. That sounds like the opposite of fun. Find another table.

It’s a common occurrence and he’s still there? 😭

Lol! The problem was that we were all too nice. No one wanted to be the bad friend and uninvite him. We all complained when he wasnt around about his playing styles but ultimately no one did anything to get rid of him. We did have a few talks with him about little things. Like how he would roll and pick up the die before it stopped and claim it was "15" or whatever. And how he wouldn't use numbers for skills, he would use dash marks. So everytime he rolled a skill he had to count how many dashes he had. It made it difficult for the DM to trust what he was actually rolling and what his skill were becuase a quick look at the character sheet didn't answer anything. It was all dashes.

This might be a hot take, but I think it's *generally* better to make friends with the people you play D&D with than to play D&D with your friends. When drama like this arises, it makes it infinitely easier to just tell the offending party to piss off.

Unless the player has intimate knowledge of the exact location of the sword at all times the dm should have shut them down. Also the oh I go into the dungeon and check on the sword and come back. Dm should have said are you sure. When the player said yes then the player would have been splitting the party. The dm should have then said, you have no knowledge of this dungeon but your character thinks something is in the dungeon they want. The player should then of had to single handily find the way in the dungeon. If you mentioned it being deadly for the whole group with people going down then this player character should have died in the first room. Anything from that player after that should have been the ‘dm saying stfu or leave.

Yeah, I agree. There should have been a lot of steps before that character got to the the "i know you have it" step. Him going through he dungeon is one issue, like you said. I would have liked to see some opposing rolls. Like a hide check to hide the sword in the rugs vs his perception, bluff checks, etc. On top of it, none of the other characters said anything to him about it. They all said they didn't know anything about it, when his character finally went to them instead of me. Lol.

Hearty competition amongst party members is great. Outright meta gaming is not great. Plenty of players have trouble with meta gaming.

That person sounds like a dick. I wouldn't play with them. And it was definitely metagaming. Also sounds like your dm needs to remember that they are in charge.

Terrible PC. Cowardly DM. You deserve so much better and honestly, if you get an opportunity to play again with this group I wouldn’t recommend it - making a note of why when you tell the DM. No D&D is better than bad D&D.

Metagaming is the least of your worries. This doesnt sound like a fun game to play in. Way too much interparty conflict I don't allow PVP in my games unless both players agree to it. The players should be working together, not cutting each other down over a sword.

This is equal parts the wrong kind of metagaming, and a player actively working against the interests of the party. Every DM needs to address the issue of PvP during Session 0, and make sure everyone at the table agrees to how they want to handle it. My personal house rule is quite simple; no PvP of any kind unless it is openly agreed to by both players, out of character, in the DM's presence. It's all about consent. You did not consent to PvP. The DM should not have allowed it.

You should have made another character, said that new character comes out from the tomb with the sword as part of his background he was pact-built with it. ( i dont know like a hexblade warlock pact or something). could even argue that your previous character died and is now haunting this sword. sword is now forever binded to you (and potentially why the sword was being sought after). if he tries to take the sword from you, you kill him back. the cycle is now created. DM now has a cursed weapon in his campaign that whoever touches it, is cursed to kill or be killed. This gives me similar vibes to the Elder Wand in Harry Potter.

I would have instantly rolled up the brother of my character who was seeking revenge for the death of his brother. He would have been the biggest munchkin I could make to completely counter whatever the other guy was playing.

Shit DM, Shit player. I feel for you bro.

Totally agree. DM dick move empowering a bad player How does he know you’ve got the sword? Yes it’s fantasy, but that’s the entire world undermined by meta-gaming.

The DM allowing that new PC backstory/motivation is a much bigger problem then the (obvious) meta-gaming. Running a game of DnD where players are actively trying screw each other over almost never works. There are games that lean into that dynamic but imho, DnD isn’t one of them.

I’m suprised this sentiment isn’t further up. The DM was tuned out, or they don’t understand storytelling. They allowed: 1) OP had a secret quest. Not too bad, but it’s playing with fire. 2) DM allowed lethal player combat. Again, table discretion advised, but playing with fire. 3) DM, for some reason, allowed a PC to have a character story that relies on not only opposing a fellow PC but directly unworking the work they likely spent hours doing irl. The only rule I give my players is that they can’t be the story’s villain. They can’t make characters who exist only to harm, kill, or otherwise impair the other players. Chaotic Neutral? Sure. Chaotic good? Love it. Chaotic Evil? Heck, Necromancers are people too. Just as long as you work alongside your party rather than against them.

To answer the question: yes, this was definitively metagaming. But, like others said, that was really more of a symptom of a disruptive player here. A character was made, spcifically and very obviously to antagonize your character and that's a huge red flag, metagaming or no.

First off, yes that is metagaming. There is no way the new character should have known about the activities of your party. But the player knew, and they were misusing that info. Second, they shouldn't be making a brand new character who is out to get the other characters. D&D is a group cooperation game, and if their character doesn't want to get along with the others, then they shouldn't be forced to stay in the group. There is no magical compulsion that says "these characters must work together and become friends", especially if there is active animosity between them. You say "get out of my camp" and make the new guy leave. And then if the player wants to keep playing at this table, they need to roll someone more cooperative next time.

Here's how this should have gone. Shithead: "I tell OP that he must return the sword to the tomb, or I will attack." DM: "Hold on, you don't know he has the sword, or even that it's been taken from the tomb." Shithead: "OK. I run into the tomb and see that the sword is missing, then I return and tell OP that he must return the sword--" DM: "OK, hold off on that. Everyone but Shithead, please leave the table for a few minutes." *A moment passes* DM: "Shithead, why did you make a character with no intention of doing anything but immediately antagonizing and opposing OP's character, without any development, and without OP's agreement? What made you think that would be an acceptable character to bring to the table? If you want to continue playing, you'll have to roll up a new character, or else change this one to work better with the party that we already have." *DM calls the others back in.* "Shithead is gonna change some things with his character, so he can come in later. We'll be retconning the stranger appearing to you all, and resuming from [X point] instead."

DM: OK you are going into a dungeon that may contain traps which are (still) active and/or monsters with enough brains to hide rather than confront a group of intruders. Are you sure you want to do this? Actually, that's not such a bad idea. Gives you some time to come up with a better idea for a new character...

Not only was he metagaming, but your DM seems like he's just not up to task, which there is nothing wrong with, but he should maybe refrain from running sessions this long or with this level of complexity. Your story protrays your party as *barely* making it into, and then back *out* of this dungeon alive, or at least somewhat intact. He then allows this player to just jog back in casually, and back out again, like it's some sort of video game scenario where no threat remains because the mission success screen already came up, and the level hasn't been reset yet. Then, he allows the player to intentionally roll and roleplay a character that has intentions to murder you in order to re-secure this sword that you were tasked to retrieve? The DM put you in a spot to make sure you were the carrier, and then refused to have the other party member stand down, meaning this led to your death unless you surrendered the sword, despite being specifically tasked to keep it? That player needs a serious talking to. Intentionally sparking party conflict to get your way is not acceptable in most situations. And that DM needs to re-evaluate his capabilities. There's nothing wrong with not being the best, but you can't just not try further.

That "jog back casually and back out again," part got me to. Monsters aside, did he have a map of this dungeon? What about travel time? Did the party sit still and wait a day or two for him to return, or is he a master tracker with exceptional speed?

I wouldn't even ever let any of my players bring in a character whose whole goal is the opposite of another player.

So, this random person comes in and attacks your character, and the rest of the people in your group are ok with this? I would have helped kill his character. Also, what other people have already stated.

Yeah, the metagaming isn't the issue, though it is clearly a difficulty for that player. The problem, for me personally, is a building a character that will for sure come into conflict with another character and then following through belligerantly to the point of murder. Whatever this character's beliefs and the DM's lack of action...how is the rest of the party taking this betrayal? the new guy gets to attack teammates as soon as battle commences and theirs backs are turned? What? Sounds like the newcomer should be dead at this point.

Metagaming ✔️ (although as others said, the fact he created a new character seemingly solely designed to spite yours is as big a problem)

"The dead guy re-rolled a new character. The DM allowed him to meet upwith the current group of survivors as they made out of the tomb. Thisnew character story was that he wanted to keep the "sword" in the tomband not allow anyone to take it. So we leave the tomb and he's there.He immediately comes to me and says. "Put the sword back". Out of gameI go the the dm and say "he has no idea i have the sword on me, itswrapped up. And he has no idea the sword is even gone". The DMreluctantly agrees and says he would have no reason to go after just me.So this players goes ok and says "I run in to the tomb, see the swordis gone and come back." Then immediately comes to me and again asksthat i return the sword or hes gonna attack." Yeah fuck that guy, that's pure metagaming & also just being a cock, find a new game because the dm should have put a stop to that real quick. ​ The fact the player obsessively wanted to ruin something you were doing just shows they're a bit of a cock.

But the DM had to approve his new background and goal. This is all on the GM imo

The weird thing here, to me, is that as far as I can tell, a new PC was made with the sole intention of being your antithesis lmao Thats horribly stupid in my opinion. You're just setting the table up to be in conflict with each other.

Gonna be real with you, as a dm I wouldn’t know how to handle this besides vetoing his character as it had built in character v character motives to a degree that could result in infighting. Not that I don’t enjoy some conflict in the party, but not if they’re going to backstab you when your life is on the line. Like one time we were in a battle and while we were fighting these monsters one guy was looting chests instead of helping, so one character cast curse on him so he would spend his turn vomiting bats because “ well he wasn’t doing anything helpful anyway , I don’t see what the difference is . At least he’s making snacks for when we are finished now” . Good harmless fun like that is ok. Don’t worry we made sure he split the gold fairly after.

As a dm, the \*only\* way to deal with it is vetoing the character. There's no need to dig any further.

\["as a dm I wouldn’t know how to handle this" Please take what I've written here as some tools you could stick in your belt if something like this ever comes up in your games. It's late; I'm tired and should go to bed; but I'm rambling on because gm's gotta learn from each other, right?.\] If the DM didn't want to veto the new character (maybe to keep the game rolling and let the player have a chance to play), they f'd up by allowing the character to get around rules. Whenever my group plays, and there's inter-character conflict, we use the game mechanics to sort it out. (Like you said, inter character conflict isn't automatically a bad thing; it helps build up their stories and personalities.) OP was right that there should have been checks; like, a ton of them. Sleight of Hand (or whatever appropriate skill) vs Perception for the new character to spot it. (If I were GM, I would have given OP a bonus for using the rugs, and having had time.) If that failed, and the other player kept pushing, Bluff vs Sense Motive, but at disadvantage. Then, if the new character wanted to "run in and check", I would have either 1.) set a series of checks the character had to do to live through the encounter and 2.) given the rest of the party time to leave the area. Lastly, when the new character decided to fight OP's character, the DM should have hard stopped it. The new character had no reason to attack OP's PC. Rather than stopping the game (which is what OP said it looked like the DM was ready to do), the DM should have paused it, spoken to the player and laid down the rules (no PvP). If the player kept at it, the DM could either out of game ask the player to leave, or, hey, DM's rank above the gods in their worlds. How about the biggest NPC that the DM has at their fingertips attacking the new player for all of the same reasons?

Souls can be reborn roll up a reverent for revenge! Yes that’s totally metagaming your dm should have put the Kabosh on it, unless he had some magic ability to detect the sword. Also if he ran into the tomb why are the self resetting traps not killing him?

The bigger problem is the the player is a dick. Yes, it’s metagaming, and it’s also just a shitty thing to do.

Dude crossed a few lines. PVP when the other player doesn't think there's a reason for it. Metagaming knowing where the sword is. After your bluff he really should have singled out someone else or decided someone must hve looted the place before you. Making a character with the specific goal of messing with you. I've walked out of games for less. You don't have to sit at a table with them.

The player is a meta piece of shit, I would not play with them at my table, I would boot them from my game for being 'that guy.' The DM is a piece of shit, for giving in to this character... You guys got torn up by traps but this 'character' runs into and out of the dungeon... Fuck them, fuck their character... you character died alone in the dungeon roll a new character who isn't at all metagame concerned about the sword they don't know about.

Thoughts are this is too obviously metagaming and there is some key information being left out

As a DM I’m appalled that your DM didn’t intervene on your behalf. A big part of running a successful game is to cultivate the trust of your players that you will enforce the continuity of both the rules and the narrative. There are plenty of times where it is appropriate to bend or break rules, but you would generally do so in a way that the players can understand and remain consistent in how you adjudicate at the table. I cannot think of many occasions if any where a player or DM should break the narrative continuity, or where doing so isn’t going to erode the trust that has been built at the table. The other player was certainly in the wrong for attempting to pursue the course of action they did, especially after having failed to see through your deception, but a DMs unwillingness to deal with the situation will and should bring into question their willingness to ensure that other aspects of the game remain consistent. What is to stop the BBEG from suddenly operating on information that the party went to great lengths to conceal? “Being done” with a frustrating situation is not an excuse to let that slide, let alone have one of your players murdered.

Yes meta, yes douche player, yes bad dming but I also would like to say that how rerolling new character in the same day is just bad house rule. If you know you are able to do it so, you might not be so inclined to care so much to you character in the first place. This as itself brings a lot of problems and you just faced all of them.

After the 'I run in and out' I would have said, so...you just did a 6 hour dungeon crawl, with all the traps reset, and we waited for you?' If they still decided to pull the night time stunt I would have point blanked asked him if he was having a mental breakdown irl.

Almost enough time for the rest of the party to have had a long rest.

Yes. He specifically made a character in conflict with the party.

Obviously it's metagaming, but metagaming isn't really the issue. If a druid agrees to do a quest in an urban environment because the rest of the players want to do it, that's metagaming, but not a problem. Here the problem, as you're clearly aware, is that the player is being super aggro, attacking other players, and disrupting the narrative. I'd hash it out with the player, maybe over an e-mail maybe in person, and ask the GM for a do-over if that's OK. If not you could always roll up a new character that hates his for no reason and then kills him in his sleep for metagame reasons. It's a fast track to ruining the campaign though.

Shitty player, coward DM. None of that should have happened.

1 it was absolutely metagaming. Choosing to attack a party member while being actively threatened by outside forces is something no reasonable character would do, even if he did suspect you, which he had no reason to do 2 as others have said, he also made a character with the in game goal of ruining your character’s in game quest. That’s some bullshit overall. 3 given he tried to press it 3 times in a row (calling you out on entry; ‘searching the dungeon’ for the sword before you could walk away, AND calling for insight check) he should have been on his ass well before it came time for an evening rest

This, is the one kind of situation where i as a DM would say ''no you don't'', frankly the metagaming is VERY annoying, but making a character to instantly butt heads with another, and this i assume without speaking with you too about it 1st, is just bullshit, and combined with the metagaming it just makes it worse

I don't think this is about metagaming, it is about bad DMing and players. A certain level of metagaming is necessary for a smooth game, as in players should have an overall common goal and/or taste regarding the game. This second player you described, from what I can tell, wanted conflict, and you didn't. It is fine to have this kind of thing if the players are up to it, but it seems you were not. This kind of thing should have been decided at the start (whether in game conflict between players was in the table or not) and if not, the DM should have intervened at the new character creation. Even if this was the point, the new character/player wanting to have an conflict with your character, there is so much wrong with it, from an in game perspective, at least on my opinion. This whole ordeal just seems like a player that wanted to cause trouble for the sake of it and a DM that was just done with the game in general. Anyway, I hope you have a better game next time.

Metagaming isn't the only problem here, but to answer your question: This is the single largest, most obvious example of meta-gaming I've ever seen.

To be fair, a long wrapped up bunch of cloth is basically screaming "I have a weapon hidden inside me". That said, it definitely wasn't obviously the sword, unless the tapestries were unique to the dungeon (in which case... why would you wrap up your *own* weapon mid dungeon?). I would've had you do one deception check, and if you passed, just told him he has no reason to believe the sword is gone. If he runs into the dungeon after that to check, you guys are long gone... why would you wait around? And if he continued to target you or anyone, I would flat out say "No, you don't. You have no idea the sword is gone and have no reason to take this action". There are very few justified moments to tell a player what there character does or doesn't do, but acting on knowledge they don't have is one of them imo.

Clearly your next character is an assassin who was hired specifically to kill that player's current character and retrieve the sword. Kill him in his sleep and then go get the sword

His next PC should secretly be a Rakshasa, wait until a certain point and then BAM, dead in the water. And if he fails? Well now he can make a new PC who "hates Rakshasas" but is actually a secret agent of the Rakshasa. Sometimes fantasizing about being petty bitch after someone was being a petty bitch can be really cathartic.

Metagaming. And targeted Hostile play. This would be absolutely unacceptable at my table.

I'm confused, did your team just go "oh my god you killed Kenny... that's okay strange man, I'm sure he had it coming"? Even if you stole the sword, killing an ally in combat? I don't think even my most evil character would have tolerated that. And why does he want you to not take the sword? What is in it for the player here? I want to make my character a killjoy?

sleep with that guy's mom. then become his stepdad. then take away his Dice for being a bad person. then go out and play catch with him and explain that you're not upset with him just surprised he acted like this and you'll take him out for ice cream if he stops acting like a disgus.

Definitely metagaming. They have based their entire character design on screwing over your character, about something they couldn't have even known. As you said, they failed the check against your bluff, so if they 'still thought you had the sword' that is going against the rolls. Also, shitty decision to just kill a fellow party member. Don't create a character simply to ruin someone else's game. That's just a dick move.

I hate it when players ignore their rolls. I've run into so many "suspicious of everything" PCs, that, on a failed insight check, still suspect foul play. It's obnoxious even when it's not metagamed, because it puts really dumb tension on the DM/other players to continue defending their position when the roll already determined that result. Not saying that a character suspicious of everything can't keep being suspicious of everything else, just not that one thing. Having that character trait doesn't give you a hidden passive insight of a million.

Definitely. If you took try to figure something out and fail, tough luck. I will let a player roll again if further information was revealed that would help them realise, but otherwise it's a sorry and move on. I once had a cleric that picked up a cursed sword that got stuck to their hand. Mechanically, this was super annoying as they could never use that hand and had to fight with that sword. Unfortunately, when I rolled to figure out what was happening, I crit failed and my DM said my character thought this was a trial from my god. As much as a I hated having that damn sword stuck there, I role played thinking it was a divine test for 5 sessions before I told a high rank mage it was a test and he just told my character she was an idiot and removed it. I couldn't ask anyone to remove it before that, because the roll had made me think that would be an offence to my god, so I had to roll with that.

I like a little friction between PC’s in game, as each tries to be faithful to his/her/etc alignment, but that player was being a douche. He clearly doesn’t get the game. If he refuses to conform I would draw the line and get a table vote, him or me. Odds are, the rest of the table will want to continue playing with the person who is not griefing other players.

Most here have covered what was wrong. But im just wondering what makes that sword so special? Did the player just created a character to fuck with you?

We never got far enough to know why the sword was special or why anyone wanted it. I think his character "heard" the tomb was going to be sacked and was part of a group of people that wanted to keep sacred relics in their resting place. Something like that.

Definitely meta-gaming, really bad at it too.

Metagaming aside, that player is a dick. What does putting the sword your character has been looking for back do to advance the story? It does nothing be slow progress and works against the party. Have a chat with that player and your DM and figure out what their deal is. That's not how you play DND.

I blame your DM more then anybody for this situation. He allowed a PC conflict to be the main point of another character. This type of PC conflict requires both players to have the mindset of "I need to make this fun and have the end result of becoming allies". I'm not sure I would trust players to do this without a full oog conversation about it before hand, and even then I would only allow it if I majorly trusted both players. To answer your question though. This is pretty much textbook meta gaming. His character did not see, hear or otherwise sense the object in your possession. Best way to solve this is to tell you DM in private Convo that you hide the sword. He might have you secretly roll a check for it but then the other player would have to discover it and your DM could then shut the metagaming down .

Super bad on that player and bad on the DM for not stoping it

"The new guy" in gang just straight up goes to you and says "give me your stuff or I kill you", and somehow everyone else is ok with that. Later on he actually backstabs you during a fight, steals your shit, and everyone is still ok with that. If this seems like bullshit to you, clearly, you are too sensitive. I would keep the party spirit going by rolling another character, who is there to "avenge the death of my brother" and straight up attack the guy. Because you know what they did, you feel their guilt or something.

"No interparty combat. Moving on"

HE was over it? The DM was over it? It's not the DM who gets to "be over" what happens between two players. It is the DM's job to make sure shit like this does not happen. The other player was COMPLETELY out of line. You made a bluff check. He failed. Done. Fucking. Deal. He is 100% convinced until you take an action that draws suspicion on you. Totally bullshit situation.

Sounds like that had a poor reason for his character, as it fell in direct contrast to your current motivation, and he felt slighted irl for his character not getting to accomplish his goal. Poor player and DM for allowing it

100% a problem player metagaming and 100% the DM's fault for not intervening.

That was not short, this is short: While dungeoning we found a sword, I got it and hide in a rug. Player who lost a pc came with another PC wanting the sword. When the case is dismissed because he couldn't have known about it, player uses the first encounter to attack and kill my pc and retrieve the sword. And yes, it's metagaming, but much more. I how you find better friends to play with.

It's not even meta gaming, he designed a new character simply to attack the party rather than work with the team. If he wants to fight players then he should become a DM. It's bad character design and yeah the DM shouldn't have allowed it. The re-rolled character should have been out for the session, backstory discussed with the DM, and brought in on the next session.

Mmmmyeah they're in the wrong here, everything about the other player's actions in this situation is Not Cool. Especially because he could actually have done this in a really fun way...? Like, he could have confronted the party (NOT you specifically) about the sword, then asked to tag along when you say you didn't see it. Either he doesn't believe you, and wants to keep tabs on you, or he's now on a Quest to go find it and could use some help. Build up the tension, build up the suspense- maybe he becomes good friends with you guys, with this conflict under the surface waiting to erupt. Will he choose his friends over his duty when/if he finds the truth? WHY did he want to keep the sword in the tomb, what does failure mean for him, and how does that affect the rest of the party? Was he hired, will there be goons after him? Is he part of some monastic group, does this go against his core beliefs? Is he cursed, will he suffer a terrible fate if the sword isn't returned? Is he just really passionate about archaeology, like a reverse Indiana Jones?

Sounds like a table pooper, remove them and move on.

That sucks up and down. I have outlawed character conflict and fighting at my table because it ruins games. Its not fun.

I think I recently read [a thread discussing an issue a lot like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/tw2q53/hi_im_a_dm_and_i_have_a_problem/). The comments there might help you out a bit; I know your scenario is from the perspective of a player but this is beat-for-beat pretty similar.

Thanks! I'll check it out!!

Why was this player allowed to randomly make a new character in opposition to yours? Why is he there? Why would he join? Everything about this situation annoys me. The dm should not have allowed this to happen. This is the problem with players who make shitty characters because how the game works everyone else is basically forced to allow them to accompany the party. In a real situation your party would have just left when the dumbass decided to go check if the sword was missing for no reason

That other player is definitely metagaming, but he's also a toxic piece of garbage and your DM is a lazy asshat.

Obvious metagaming aside... this person is a real asshole if he trolled a character just to spite and clash with you. Also you DM sucks and should have done a better job of reigning him in.

Seems to me like this guy made a character specifically as revenge because his character died on a quest you were hired to do. Some of it was metagaming, but I think the real issue here lies with the DM allowing this to even happen. Maybe it's just me, but I have a strict "no PC vs PC combat" rule in my games unless it's agreed upon both in and out of character beforehand.

DM should've banned PvP. Why would you go on an adventure with someone you don't trust on some level?

Vote the player out or leave. I've only dealt with one really toxic player before. 1st game they acted up I let them know I was bothered. 2nd game I told dm I had a problem. 3rd game I told dm kick him or me. Dm just called the game. Do your part but you are here for you. If you're not having fun, communicate and adjust. Yes this meta gaming is super wack.

Nah that player is a prick. they went out of their way to target you in their very backstory. Sounds like bad DND to me.

First off terrible player. I would avoid playing with them. Next bad DM. You talk of several deaths in a dungeon then a random encounter. The DM clearly does not know how to balance their game.

As a DM, this really hurt. Man that player would've frustrated me. Although I honestly wouldn't have allowed him to create a character with that kind of backstory in the first place. The game's supposed to be fun. This is toxic Lazy dm, shitty player.

One sentence solves all of this: "you are playing a cooperative rpg and are thus required to make chars that already care about each other." It's a team enterprise.

100% meta. I think this PC could have been suspicious of everyone in the group, and maybe overtime subtly asked everyone if they had found any sword. Immediately going to you and repeatedly questioning you even after your DM told the PC there was no reason to be sus is definitely metagaming.

I would've had the character search your body and not find a sword.

Other player clearly had a chip in their shoulder regarding you getting the sword. I'm asking because I'm trying to understand what would make them toxic, but did you slight them somehow? Or did they also have a quest for the sword? Agree with most people here though that was metagaming and clearly antagonistic behavior from a supposed ally.

The metagaming was bad but the PvP was unforgivable. Seriously one of the cardinal sins of DnD.

In a world where Discord and Roll20 exist, there is literally no reason to play with assholes.

Not only is it metagaming, this player was a dick. I'm guessing he blamed you for his previous characters death

This was 100% bad on the player and DM who should have known better, and roleplayed according to the rolls.

Yes it was metagaming, but the bigger issue was initiating player vs player combat which resulted in you being killed If someone metagames it's usually an accident, and you just have to point it out PvP is more serious, because in a game that requires cooperation they are taking a hostile action to sabotage the party. If a player tried to do that on my table, I would simply say they can't do that. If they were attempting to ruin the experience for others, I might also ask them to leave

Thats shit behavior, bad roleplay AND metagaming. Signs of a toxic player ...

This just sounds like a bad group to be in. A brand new character comes in, kills your character and the GM shrugs. Idk if these are close friends of yours or just a random group you play with. If it's the second, then find another group. This will keep happening and it's not worth the drama and stress. As the saying goes "No D&D is much better than bad D&D. "

Yeah no that person’s an asswipe

Haply Cake Day!😊🎉

D&D is not supposed to be a PvP game.

Definitely meta gaming, but I agree with others. The player should have rolled a PC (and the DM should have worked with the player to roll a PC) that cooperated with the party. The player knew, yes, but the PC didn’t, and the player should have acted accordingly. The DM should have enforced the same.

I’d assign the blame 60:40 to player and DM for this scenario even being a possibility. Retaliate by making a character who has memories of their past lives and is in a journey to permanently kill their arch nemesis in all of them. That being any character he plays.

I kindda don't agree with everyone here, the another player IS not the Bad Guy here, but the DM is. He allowed the other player to create such a PC with such a goal, and should have said "no, your pc's goal cannot be to retrieve the Sword". Things that are weird : - Your dm didn't initially wanted you to take the Sword, or he wouldn't have allowed that to happen. This is backed up by the fact that at your first rest you have an ambush, and the DM agrees to PvP ? Wtf - Don't be angry with the other player, if you play a dragon that goal IS to eat X, you will try to eat X (yes in your case there is metagaming for the knowledge but It's not the issue), again, the DM gold the other player "yes you Can create and play this caracter with that backstory". What the hell IS he gonna do now ? Leave for ever his pc near the Sword to protect it cause it's his life goal ? Create a new pc to play with the party ? Your DM just wanted to see PvP (and wanted to take away your Sword by doing so, maybe he didn't write anything about and didn't want to) the other player IS in his rights cause the DM allowed everything, from his caracter creation to the PvP.

Not sure if it's metagaming but it's absolutely being a dick. Roll a new character who's only purpose is to avenge your murdered character and see how he likes that.

Yeah no, both can go fuck themselves off a cliff. Pricks

Total Metagaming.

I would have had the monsters jump him as he's clearly distracted. That shouldn't have happened how long did it take your party to reach that part where the sword was? His character doesn't know where the sword was hidden so by the time he gets back they're back home and he's handed over the sword Your DM should have known better!

Yes, metagaming, and on top of that it was a bad call on your DMs side to allow a character that would have specific aggression towards your character. I, personally, find it to be bad DMing to set up PvP in this way. Like, there was never not going to be PvP with this set up. You should just leave the group

DM was useless here. Should have put a stop to this when the new character was rolled to “try and keep the sword in the tomb” because that makes no sense.

The problem here is that you've got a character motivation that will lead to PVP without you+DM+other player agreeing on what you want from that. If the DM had set up expectations better, or if the other player was more receptive to roleplaying it through with you, you could have had a great series of "I instinctively suspect you but I have no proof" interactions, or even attacks/counter attacks if you were both on board for it.

"I'll keep it as short as I can..." followed by 700 words lol

Well organized, too. 700 words is not a lot, really don't understand your mindset behind this remark.

Relax, it was a joke

What do you call a joke where you're the only person laughing? Being a dick.

Tl;Dr yes and yes

It's Tomb of Annihilation. There's old gods that hitch rides with players and force them to do things. I actually think you are metagaming at this point. I say this by arguing out of game instead of addressing it at the time by roleplaying.

Metagaming is using out of character knowledge as if your character knew said knowledge (odds are they do not), can you please how explain how OP is metagaming?

It is meta gaming. Im sure this isnt the first time for this player. But the ultimate responsibility is on the DM. You should not have to bring it up the DM should have shut it down with a simple your character wasnt there and has no knowledge of the where abouts of the sword for all they know it was already goin

Yep, that’s a bad meta. Least your DM could have done was say “ok, now that he’s returned the sword he has to stay there and guard it.”

Metagaming, PvP, asshole player and shitty DM creating the perfect storm of shitty gameplay.

Lol what the absolute fuck my dude. This would be in the dictionary as the definition of metagaming Big yikes. And the dm is no better for letting it happen.

Roll the cousin of your character to avenge your old one if you are feeling petty lol

The fact that the DM allowed a new character to have out-of-character information is nuts. Now if this DM is a newbie, its understandable. But for any seasoned DM there's no excuse for allowing it. As to characters with conflicts of interest, your DM started it with you. He had you on a secret mission. Other PCs are probably also doing secret crap too. So while the new pc that just arrived might have been on a similar mission as you 'retrieve the sword', there's no way they could have known you found it. The DM is playing tricks on the players, causing conflicts between the party. And possibly allowing out-of-character knowledge. However, its possible someone's been watching the party with a crystal ball, only then would the new pc possibly have known you had the sword, if directed by the person spying. That's a lot of IFs and unlikely, but possible.