PDA

View Full Version : On Metagame and in-character "Suddendly I realize...!".



Yael
2015-03-25, 08:28 PM
This is mostly aimed towards D&D 3.X, but because it happens with cWoD, I'll post it here.

Unless another definition is more accurate, Metagame is refered as having your character to do certain things that the Player knows but the character do not, so any act of suddendly knowing something or how to do something after other player points it out incurs into this definition (as long as it isn't directly said in-game). So I will be using the term "metagame" for that definition.

What I am looking for? Kind of advice or something. I have this friend that plays D&D and D10 that literally doubles my time at roleplaying games, but he is kinda problematic when it comes to metagaming
Some short (and recent examples) are:

1. D&D exploration campaign where he plays a half-drow who was raised by humans and had no contact with Lolth, he got the Touch because the Spider Queen's schemes, but suddendly he remembered that he had the gift and tried to contact her via divination and rituals, so... In case you didn't notice, contacting a deity he doesn't know that exist isn't player knowledge. He got the touch when born, by the way.

2. Zombie Survival d10, he was secretly infected by another party member via soup to test what the virus does, but the party member that was experimenting did it by sending papers with the ST, which we all respect, except for him... So he "knew" he wasn't infected by a battle with a miniboss that he triggered by himself, where he got green smiley liquid into his nose and mouth, but he knew he was being secretly infected by "another source"? Heck, I, the " voice of reason with a Path of Survival thought it was during the fight and got the news of how was he infected seconds before my death... He never revealed (even to the ST) how he suspected.

3. CWoD game in the Gothic era, around 1630~ He plays an Immortal that goes to "find" another party member that he does not know. The party member is an Orphan that travels with a troupe, bur will stay in the port-city of York, England. His excuse is "I feel a weird aura" in a town filled with supernatural creatures including vampires, gargoyles, hunters, garou and mages... So... what? Why the orphan? This happened during the prelude... We'll play this friday...

4. "I have the right spell for that"... 3.5 again, he plays an Evoker, but something was weird, he never cast other than Kelgore's Fire Bolts or Fireballs, but he always happened to have the right, obscure spell that is in the Frostburn book that is 3rd level and does X thing at a very specific situation... One day he cast a cleric spell and the DM asked for his spellbook, guess what? No spellbook :)

How you deal with this kind of players? How to stop metagaming? Other players have changed their actions when you ask them: and how you do it? And stuff... Thoughts?

blacklight101
2015-03-25, 08:38 PM
Best way to stop meta? One of the groups i'm in started doing penalties to the player's HP.

Her meta was dragging the game down every session- not to say others of us weren't guilty, she was simply the worst about it- so super obvious meta is penalized by unhealable damage until next session. No more than a few points, I think we ruled 2hp per super obvious meta incident.

Game sped up afterwards, since she wasn't trying to use every bit of OOC knowledge she had about the setting/quest/etc. And it did get more fun since we have more IC time to figure these same things out.

Sometimes, it's that knowledge barrier that makes a game more fun.

1337 b4k4
2015-03-25, 08:44 PM
How you deal with this kind of players? How to stop metagaming? Other players have changed their actions when you ask them: and how you do it? And stuff... Thoughts?

Assuming you're the GM, you say No. Yeah yeah, I know that "Say yes" is touted as (and often is) the way to GM, but sometimes you have to say No. No is a powerful tool that draws a clear and distinct line in the sand. It needs to be used sparingly, but it does need to be used. Now it doesn't have to be an explicit No, just a hard challenge, e.g. "ok, you feel an aura, in fact you feel lots of auras, so many it's overpowering. You'll need to figure out a way to narrow it down." Sometimes you have to remind the player (in private) that this isn't a game about winning, and the rules and obstacles are there to make a challenge, not for you to worm your way around.

icefractal
2015-03-25, 10:15 PM
The first one - possibly metagaming, but I'm confused - if he was planning to contact Lolth, then why choose to have been raised by humans? Maybe he changed his mind on what character concept he wanted? I think we need more info.

The second is metagaming, yeah. Pretty textbook example. Although I'm assuming PvP was on the table from the start - if it wasn't, then the real fault lies with the other player that infected him.

The third is metagaming, but in a way that's usually beneficial. Realistically, if the PCs start separate, they might never end up meeting each-other, and probably wouldn't join forces even if they did. It (often) takes a bit of benign metagaming to get the party together in the first place.

The fourth is just cheating. While the first three are a matter of opinion, this one isn't - he's blatantly ignoring the rules and lying about it.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-25, 10:28 PM
1. Knowing Lloth is the goddess of drow is like a DC 10 check. It's really, really, really well known. It's not like she is a big secret.

2. This sounds like metagaming.

3. Yup, metagaming.

4. This is more just cheating.

Well, I would not worry about one. Any person age 15 or so would have heard about Lloth at least once. They would have heard at least one story.

The second. Well, this goes to game play: How does the player know things. You might not want to tell the player things.

Third. This again is the player knowing things. How? Why?

Fourth. Well this is the easy one. Have each player give a copy of their character sheet to their DM.

It sounds like you might be playing the odd way of ''tell the players all, then have the players have the characters act like they don't know.'' The fix is...don't tell the players.

Seerow
2015-03-25, 10:39 PM
1. D&D exploration campaign where he plays a half-drow who was raised by humans and had no contact with Lolth, he got the Touch because the Spider Queen's schemes, but suddendly he remembered that he had the gift and tried to contact her via divination and rituals, so... In case you didn't notice, contacting a deity he doesn't know that exist isn't player knowledge. He got the touch when born, by the way.

Did he have any ranks in Knowledge Religion, Planes, or even Local? I'd argue any of those would be sufficient for a half-drow to have knowledge of who Lolth is. Not really seeing the metagame factor in just knowing about the deities existence. But I have no idea what the rest of what you are saying actually means.



3. CWoD game in the Gothic era, around 1630~ He plays an Immortal that goes to "find" another party member that he does not know. The party member is an Orphan that travels with a troupe, bur will stay in the port-city of York, England. His excuse is "I feel a weird aura" in a town filled with supernatural creatures including vampires, gargoyles, hunters, garou and mages... So... what? Why the orphan? This happened during the prelude... We'll play this friday...

This seems to me like the sort of metagaming that every group engages in on some level. Fudge a little bit to get the party together in one place and trusting each other enough to be willing to work together. From what you described here, it is metagaming, but totally acceptable in any but the most hardcore groups I've been around.


4. "I have the right spell for that"... 3.5 again, he plays an Evoker, but something was weird, he never cast other than Kelgore's Fire Bolts or Fireballs, but he always happened to have the right, obscure spell that is in the Frostburn book that is 3rd level and does X thing at a very specific situation... One day he cast a cleric spell and the DM asked for his spellbook, guess what? No spellbook :)

So he likes fire spells but is generally prepared for other situations? Sounds like a wizard to me. In fact this sounds almost like a straight up copy of Harry Dresden, flashy fire attacks as the main go-to, but plenty of other magic (especially utility magic during downtime) when it is called for. This isn't metagaming at all, it is using class features. Metagaming would be if the player was talking to the DM, found out something that was coming up in the upcoming session, and tailored his spell list to fit that. But based on what you described, this didn't happen at all, the player merely prepared appropriately.

Though as someone else pointed out, not having a spellbook at all, or trying to cast cleric spells isn't metagaming, it's cheating. Which is a totally different thing. I once had a player who whenever something bad happened, he would suddenly have a desperate need to go to the bathroom, and take his character sheet with him. When he came out, he would tell us of the plan he worked out while in the bathroom, which just so happens to involve a magic item he had totally forgotten he had, but it's right there on his character sheet!

That sort of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. Point is, make sure players are keeping their stuff consistent but don't try to punish them just for casting stuff outside of their normal repertoire. Because if you wanted to stick to 2-3 spells and never cast anything else, why are you playing a sorcerer instead of a Wizard?

Kane0
2015-03-25, 11:11 PM
You gotta call him out on it. This is one of two things:

1) He isn't aware of what he is doing and needs to be informed that he is using out of game knowledge that is not available to him in game, essentially abusing the 4th wall for in game benefit.
2) He is aware of what he is doing and is getting away with it. Calling him out on it will bring everyones attention to the shenanigans and he will be harder pressed to pull the wool over everybody's eyes. How nice you are about it is important here.

You can do it multiple ways. It could be a "Can you explain your reasoning for that?" or "Dude, there is no way you could know that" or "Mate, you don't have Schroedinger's spellbook / skills / abilities / inventory. Cut it out". How you phrase it depends on what is happening and how well you know him, as well as if you are the DM or just another player.

And don't forget that some metagaming is all going to happen. Party members joining an existing group is a big example of this, and is generally assumed so everyone can get back into the game and keep playing. 'Common knowledge' is something that also pops up but is less well defined, so sometimes you have to be careful with what you assume to be 'common knowledge'.

jaydubs
2015-03-25, 11:19 PM
1. D&D exploration campaign where he plays a half-drow who was raised by humans and had no contact with Lolth, he got the Touch because the Spider Queen's schemes, but suddendly he remembered that he had the gift and tried to contact her via divination and rituals, so... In case you didn't notice, contacting a deity he doesn't know that exist isn't player knowledge. He got the touch when born, by the way.

The DM says, "Roll a knowledge (religion) check to see if your character knows about that." If he makes it, great. If not, he'll have to find out that info another way.

It really isn't all that hard to anyway. Just go talk to some NPCs with good skill ranks in religion.


2. Zombie Survival d10, he was secretly infected by another party member via soup to test what the virus does, but the party member that was experimenting did it by sending papers with the ST, which we all respect, except for him... So he "knew" he wasn't infected by a battle with a miniboss that he triggered by himself, where he got green smiley liquid into his nose and mouth, but he knew he was being secretly infected by "another source"? Heck, I, the " voice of reason with a Path of Survival thought it was during the fight and got the news of how was he infected seconds before my death... He never revealed (even to the ST) how he suspected.

You ban PvP, or you only play with people who are cool with it. Because unless there is some player agreement that that kind of behavior is kosher, purposely infecting your party members with a lethal disease is a d*** move.


3. CWoD game in the Gothic era, around 1630~ He plays an Immortal that goes to "find" another party member that he does not know. The party member is an Orphan that travels with a troupe, bur will stay in the port-city of York, England. His excuse is "I feel a weird aura" in a town filled with supernatural creatures including vampires, gargoyles, hunters, garou and mages... So... what? Why the orphan? This happened during the prelude... We'll play this friday...

Sometimes metagame behavior is okay, if it solves a very real meta problem. In this case, getting the party together rather than wandering around on a bunch of solo adventures.

Really, the solution here isn't to prevent them from finding each other. It's for the player to come up with a better reason it happens, or for the DM to come up with an easier out. Aka, everyone needs to try harder to get past that awkward "we know we have to party up, but let's find a believable story for how it happens." And if you can't figure out a good reason as a group, sometimes you just have to handwaive it.


4. "I have the right spell for that"... 3.5 again, he plays an Evoker, but something was weird, he never cast other than Kelgore's Fire Bolts or Fireballs, but he always happened to have the right, obscure spell that is in the Frostburn book that is 3rd level and does X thing at a very specific situation... One day he cast a cleric spell and the DM asked for his spellbook, guess what? No spellbook :)

That's not metagaming. That's outright cheating. There are two good responses to cheating.

1. Kick them out of the group.

2. Set up procedures to make cheating impossible. Such as, you use the communal dice. You roll into a box into the center, and can't touch them until the DM confirms. Etc. In the spellbook case, it means giving the DM a list at the beginning of each morning. And if you don't hand over a copy, you're stuck with whatever you had the previous day. Or optionally, you're stuck with your usual "normal day" list. But you have to decide which of those is the default, not between them when you're called on it.

SiuiS
2015-03-26, 12:04 AM
I use obfuscation.

I have one player. Just one. Who does this. As an example, the players all walked into an ambush and I handed this player brief notes for an NPC to run since his character wasn't in play yet. In a public library, no windows, no power, mostly pitch black, two PCs are sneaking around while this guy tries to kill them.

One of the PCs throws his weapon, intent on making enough noise to draw the guy away, make it sound like he was sneaking that way and banged the weapon on a shelf.

"Hey, I go and pick up that sword."
What sword?
"The sword he threw. I know he threw a sword so in going to pick it up."
No, all you know is one of your enemies is hiding behind that shelf.
"No I saw him throw his sword, I know it's not him."

Now, I just don't give him enough information to put things together. If there's a situation where he can metagame, I will obfuscate what is going on – the player will only be given the information the PC has. This has gone so far as to tell him he's in pain, there was a flash and a dull ringing, his head hurt really bad and he was now on the floor – because if I told him he was shot in the side of the head by a high powered slingshot he would have dismissed the idea of being hurt and then tried to calculate the shooter's position despite not having any idea.


Oh, and for the cheating? Write your stuff down. If you don't write down the list of every spell you prepare, you didn't prepare any. Don't have a spellbook written down? Then you don't know any.

Yael
2015-03-26, 02:22 AM
I'm answering these firse, i'm on my phone and it's difficult to type long paragraphs while at my job.


The first one - possibly metagaming, but I'm confused - if he was planning to contact Lolth, then why choose to have been raised by humans? Maybe he changed his mind on what character concept he wanted? I think we need more info.
1. Knowing Lloth is the goddess of drow is like a DC 10 check. It's really, really, really well known. It's not like she is a big secret.
Did he have any ranks in Knowledge Religion, Planes, or even Local? I'd argue any of those would be sufficient for a half-drow to have knowledge of who Lolth is. Not really seeing the metagame factor in just knowing about the deities existence. But I have no idea what the rest of what you are saying actually means.
I guess I need to give context on this one.

The campaign took place at a human-only continent with cross breed of human, every comunity has lived without the "pure" non-human counterpart, so there's little place for tradition. Lolth was among the unfortunate deities that were unknown for the humanoids at said continent (it was d% to chose), and I ruled to everyone that if something was unknown by common folk, they would have to discover new spells, classes, weappns and deities by themselves, as their contined blocked 2nd level and higher Divination spells. I wouldn't have a problem if he did roleplay the discovery of his "race mother", except he didn't do that, also he was a fighter/barbarian with no cross-ranks in any knowledge.
I didn't let him contact Lolth and he cried-a-lot, he made an uproar over something we told him at the start: Knowledge isn't automatic, im this game, if you want to know something, you will have to roleplay it, only then you will get ranks in X skill.

NichG
2015-03-26, 03:30 AM
One thing I think its very important to realize is that there really are times when metagaming is not only appropriate, but ultimately necessary to hold the campaign together. So you should be careful to distinguish bad metagaming from good metagaming before being too focused on preventing it.

For example, the external reality is that you get together with the other players to play the game with each-other. If not metagaming means that your character doesn't step into the tavern where he could first meet the PCs because he doesn't like to drink, then that gets in the way of game happening. Figuring out a reason, even a tenuous one, for your character to act differently in service of the overall game is good metagaming. This is why even if you're playing a rogue, you should consider 'maybe I don't have to betray these guys'.

The alternative, to play it completely straight, means that you could show up for game, decide 'my character doesn't enter the bar', and the ST would be well within his rights to say 'well, I'm going to run for the group, so see you next week with your new character'. That's kind of my feeling of what's going on in the orphan case. The guy needs to get his character to intersect and become entangled with the party so that game can occur. So that isn't the time to be nitpicky.

On the other hand, metagaming to gain personal advantage, especially advantage over the other players, is problematic. It means that the players are all forced to be a lot more secretive, even out-of-character, which interferes in the smooth operation of the game (for instance, I've been in games where people regularly took the DM out into the hall for 30 minutes of scheming and everyone else was left twiddling their thumbs - ostensibly so that this way, the other players couldn't metagame and mess with their plots and schemes).

Joe the Rat
2015-03-26, 08:17 AM
To be clear: #4 was flat-out cheating. A well-prepared character will have just the right tool on hand, and there's a 3.5 feat (Alacritous cogitation) solely for the purpose of allowing a character to have a "mystery" slot to cast just the right spell (if you fluff it that it's not a quick-load-and-fire, but actually having just the right spell prepared, t makes your wizard that much more awesome).

Echoing what others have said, Metagaming is a tool, and one that needs to be used appropriately, in ways that support or enhance the game.

One of the things I hated about my early gaming experience was the secrecy. We needed to hide our tricks from one another, not for PvP, but because there's no reason other players would know something until it came up. I appreciate the logic to it, and there are games where it is not just beneficial, but essential (Most Vampire games and Amber Diceless being the two that stick in my head). In other games, it can be toxic to party cohesion, and downright dangerous.

Right now I have a group that is pretty good with the metagame. They know the rules, they know how things work, and they know more details about one another's characters, but mostly use what they know - and what their characters don't know - to make the game work. The new guy's character is at the bar? He'll be the one randomly selected to have a drink thrown in his face by the warlock (to make sure he isn't green), and eventually get drafted into the quest. More experienced players dropping hints to newer players about what their characters should know. Blatantly ignoring the missing rogue, who has announced his intention to sneak away, and subsequently run into a nest of stirges (He survived). Accepting bad information (and crappy search rolls) at face value, and being suspicious of good information based solely on its source. Offloading a stack of minions because they slow down the game with little benefit to the party's effectiveness.

But mostly they use it to troll one another. We have that sort of game.

Not to say that they are perfect. Giving suggestions on how to use an ability is one thing. Newly acquainted characters planning out complex coordinated maneuvers after initiative is rolled, not so much.

Thinker
2015-03-26, 08:35 AM
I don't think metagaming is that big a deal and can sometimes be beneficial when the party is stuck on a task or adventure. Still, it can be annoying when it happens so frequently and when only one person is heavily engaged in it. You could start to make use of Hero Points in all of your games to help with that. Allow Hero Points to be spent on the following:
Metagaming
Instantly preparing a spell you didn't have otherwise in exchange for another prepared spell
Reroll after you have found out the result of the first roll
Restore half hit points
Automatically succeed on a skill roll
Other things that fit the behavior of your players


At the beginning of each session, all players start with 1 Hero Point and can gain more throughout the session by doing something awesome. Hero Points reset at the beginning of the next session. By codifying the behavior, you not only tell others that it's ok to do likewise, but you also create limits on how frequently it can happen. It also gives more ammunition for others to say, "Wait a minute. He just metagamed in the tavern, he can't metagame in the town hall, too."

Red Fel
2015-03-26, 09:05 AM
First up, how to deal with it:


Assuming you're the GM, you say No.

This. If a player says that his PC does something that he cannot do - either because the PC lacks the ability to do that thing, or lacks any reasonable basis to know that thing, or whatever - you, as the DM, can say no. You are there, in part, to administer the rules, and this may be an instance of rule-breaking. If a player oversteps, you can say no.

As to how to say no:


You can do it multiple ways. It could be a "Can you explain your reasoning for that?" or "Dude, there is no way you could know that" or "Mate, you don't have Schroedinger's spellbook / skills / abilities / inventory. Cut it out". How you phrase it depends on what is happening and how well you know him, as well as if you are the DM or just another player.

This. This is saying no fairly. It's saying, "Maybe I missed something, but could you explain how you're doing that?" It's always possible you've overlooked something, or the PC really has the ability to do the thing, or the player is simply mistaken about his ability to do the thing. This is a fair, safe way to clarify any accidental metagaming or oversights.

It also does a good job of exposing the blatant and deliberate meta, in a pleasantly polite fashion.

Now, as others have pointed out, not all of this is metagaming. For example, contriving a means to get the party together, particularly pre-session, isn't a crime; it's a respected pastime. I would also not be completely opposed to a character "figuring out" that something wasn't quite right with him, since he was a Drow who was explicitly endowed by his race's patron deity, and working towards an understanding thereof. It's a bit of a gray area.

That said, some of it - particularly the bit with the spellbook - well, as others have said:


Though as someone else pointed out, not having a spellbook at all, or trying to cast cleric spells isn't metagaming, it's cheating.


That's not metagaming. That's outright cheating.

Metagaming, depending on the tone of the game, may or may not be tolerated. When you need contrivance to keep the party together, that carries a bit of metagaming. When the party is being railroaded and the players know it, that carries a bit of metagaming. It happens, and it's not an absolute unspeakable act. But as mentioned, when a player explicitly breaks the rules - for example, refusing to track his consumable items or abilities (e.g. spells) and simply improvising on the fly - that's not metagaming, it's cheating, and it's a much bigger problem.

One last thing:


The campaign took place at a human-only continent with cross breed of human, every comunity has lived without the "pure" non-human counterpart, so there's little place for tradition. Lolth was among the unfortunate deities that were unknown for the humanoids at said continent (it was d% to chose), and I ruled to everyone that if something was unknown by common folk, they would have to discover new spells, classes, weappns and deities by themselves, as their contined blocked 2nd level and higher Divination spells.

Yeah, this would have helped. It explains why he might not have been able to "figure it out." Also:


I didn't let him contact Lolth and he cried-a-lot, he made an uproar over something we told him at the start: Knowledge isn't automatic, im this game, if you want to know something, you will have to roleplay it, only then you will get ranks in X skill.

This tells me something about the player. It's one thing if a player accidentally metagames, accidentally applies player knowledge, or does it for incidental things (such as contriving to keep the party together). If a player does that and gets called out on it, there's usually an "oops" followed by a correction. Fine. That's not what this player did, and that should say something.

I'm not saying "kick the cheater," because that, in my mind, is a very last resort. I am, however, saying that you need to keep an eye on this one, possibly have a private conversation about his confusion of in- and out-of-character knowledge, and possibly his attitude.

Jay R
2015-03-26, 10:00 AM
1. D&D exploration campaign where he plays a half-drow who was raised by humans and had no contact with Lolth, he got the Touch because the Spider Queen's schemes, but suddendly he remembered that he had the gift and tried to contact her via divination and rituals, so... In case you didn't notice, contacting a deity he doesn't know that exist isn't player knowledge. He got the touch when born, by the way.

Either the GM tells him he can't do it, or he can. If the DM says, "You've never heard of Lolth," he'd probably say, "Well, I have this feeling." At that point the DM says he can't do it without knowledge, or he can.


2. Zombie Survival d10, he was secretly infected by another party member via soup to test what the virus does, but the party member that was experimenting did it by sending papers with the ST, which we all respect, except for him... So he "knew" he wasn't infected by a battle with a miniboss that he triggered by himself, where he got green smiley liquid into his nose and mouth, but he knew he was being secretly infected by "another source"? Heck, I, the " voice of reason with a Path of Survival thought it was during the fight and got the news of how was he infected seconds before my death... He never revealed (even to the ST) how he suspected.

The GM has to enforce this. Any action based on knowledge the character doesn't have must be disallowed.


3. CWoD game in the Gothic era, around 1630~ He plays an Immortal that goes to "find" another party member that he does not know. The party member is an Orphan that travels with a troupe, bur will stay in the port-city of York, England. His excuse is "I feel a weird aura" in a town filled with supernatural creatures including vampires, gargoyles, hunters, garou and mages... So... what? Why the orphan? This happened during the prelude... We'll play this friday...

The GM simply tells him he feels that aura in all towns.


4. "I have the right spell for that"... 3.5 again, he plays an Evoker, but something was weird, he never cast other than Kelgore's Fire Bolts or Fireballs, but he always happened to have the right, obscure spell that is in the Frostburn book that is 3rd level and does X thing at a very specific situation... One day he cast a cleric spell and the DM asked for his spellbook, guess what? No spellbook :)

I start my game with, "OK, all spellcasters hand me their list of spells, and we can start. If you want to change spell lists any day, just hand me the new list."

In one game I'm playing, I have a standard "home spell list", "traveling spell list", "battle spell list", and "underground spell list".


How you deal with this kind of players? How to stop metagaming? Other players have changed their actions when you ask them: and how you do it? And stuff... Thoughts?

It's trivial for the GM to stop, if he will do so. Nobody else can do it.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-26, 12:00 PM
First of all, keep talking to the player to explain your position and your preferences and to understand his. It's possible that you're not compatible in the same group.

Second of all, I agree with your definition of metagaming, but your issue isn't with metagaming. It's with cheating.

Metagaming is a necessary thing. Without it (and I've seen this happen) characters can wind up with no motivation to do anything. Having the player know that the game requires some particular kind of action on their part is key. And for the player not to do the things you're talking about is also metagaming, but in a "good" way. And I've seen that go bad, too, where the GM wants the characters to tumble to some fact, but the player is too worried about appearing to cheat that they keep their character ignorant. Imagine the player finding the orphan, and simply having his character refuse to believe he's the one he was supposed to find? That's a problem too.

How do you stop cheating? You have to understand what causes it. Like most things, it's because of the incentives. Look at the incentives the player has to act this way.

I don't know what they are in this case, but commonly the player doesn't want to be tricked, or doesn't want to stumble around or "play dumb" just to get the story and the pacing the GM wants. Some people get into that, and really like seeing a trick play out, and having to react to that, but some people don't. This guy apparently doesn't.

You say he does this a lot, but is there anything he IS willing to play along with? Focus on that. If the player is willing to play fair then you've hit on a scenario in which the player is okay with the risk of failure, or the risk of keeping player knowledge separate. In my games, I specifically tell the players that I'm not out to trick them and that no matter what happens I want them to have fun. For some people, this frees them up to go along with things, because they can have faith that I'm not going to put them in a situation they don't like. The main incentive for cheating is gone. Metagaming still happens, but it's metagaming that improves the game, rather than trivializing it.

The other way to deal with cheating is just not to care about it. You're setting up situations that hinge greatly on that player knowledge not being used. You can either not set up such situations and play scenarios that are primarily transparent (which can still be challenging), or you can decide that you're fine with the player short-circuiting a section of your plot and just move on to the next bit. If possible and desired, you can probably set up things so that having that knowledge doesn't actually solve the situation. Okay, he knows he needs to find the orphan, even knows where the orphan is, but to get there he's going to have to deal with a lot of supernatural creatures.

You're your own enemy here: you're setting up situations that give incentive to cheat, and you're creating situations that are snapped in half by this kind of cheating. Stop doing one or both of those things and the problem will be substantially reduced, without having to resort to punishment or blocking in any way.

Thrudd
2015-03-26, 12:30 PM
Some metagame situations are enabled by continuing to use the same settings with experienced players. Long time D&D players, even when they want to, can't help but apply metagame information when they are in a standard setting, like forgotten realms or greyhawk. They know all the deities, they know the monsters and the races and the cities and what to expect from them.

You can avoid this by making custom settings and customizing monsters and races away from the standard. The players should be told just what their characters know about the setting, and anything else is discovered through play. If someone tries to metagame with knowledge from standard settings, the answer will be "that doesn't exist" or "drow don't worship lolth in this setting, your character would not have that feeling"

In addition, try to present situations that can't be solved by metagame information. The story should not be about discovering information in-character that the players already know OOC, that is ruined unless the players pretend they haven't played D&D before.

Your player is a case where it sounds like mostly blatent attempts to gain special advantage for his character to the point of cheating. The answer needs to be just saying "no" sometimes. Your character couldn't know that, please try to role play that fact accordingly.

Rowan Wolf
2015-03-26, 01:30 PM
Did the first guy show anyone on the doll where Lolth touched him?

I've been very lucky that I've not seen to much meta gaming at the tables I've played at or DM'd for. As a player if I want a character to have certain in game knowledge I talk to the DM/GM about what skill/traits/whatever I need to do in the building of that character. Other time I just run with it and have the character learn more about the world thru the information provided by the DM. Some character have been very fun to play with a vast knowledge (and/or bag of holding full of books) other were just a fun not knowing an ankheg from a rust monster, all depends on the game at the time.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-26, 01:40 PM
Did the first guy show anyone on the doll where Lolth touched him?

I've been very lucky that I've not seen to much meta gaming at the tables I've played at or DM'd for. As a player if I want a character to have certain in game knowledge I talk to the DM/GM about what skill/traits/whatever I need to do in the building of that character. Other time I just run with it and have the character learn more about the world thru the information provided by the DM. Some character have been very fun to play with a vast knowledge (and/or bag of holding full of books) other were just a fun not knowing an ankheg from a rust monster, all depends on the game at the time. What those all have in common is that you, as a player, don't run into situations in which the "cost" for not metagaming is higher than the "cost" for metagaming. Your fun is not impacted if you treat something you know is a rust monsters as an ankheg, and vice versa.

Not everyone will balance things the same way. Some people would judge that the downsides for not handling a rust monster properly are so high that it's worth fudging things a little. The GM can either disagree that the fudging by the player is worth it, or agree that it's worth it. A GM who has not hinged the challenge or enjoyment of their encounter on the characters either knowing or not knowing that a creature is a rust monster is in a better position just to go with whatever the players want to do.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-26, 02:08 PM
Metagame incures the wrath of the Hand of Metagaming. Like those things that hit when you think in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but in game when the character's player metagames. Starts as a d4 and moves up over repeat offenses...

Beta Centauri
2015-03-26, 02:26 PM
Metagame incures the wrath of the Hand of Metagaming. Like those things that hit when you think in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but in game when the character's player metagames. Starts as a d4 and moves up over repeat offenses... Which is about incentives. But it's not about decreasing the incentives for metagaming, increasing the incentives for not metagaming or decreasing the disincentives for not metagaming, all of which would be positive, creative approaches. It's about increasing the disincentives for metagaming, which amounts to punishments and other negative reinforcements. That is so unpleasant and counterproductive a concept that I would think anyone would want to have a different approach.

"Roleplaying" rewards are at least a positive approach, but it leaves the incentives for metagaming in place, but just changes the balance. What are people trying to preserve? Mystery? Suspense? If players want those things you won't have to give incentives OR disincentives, because the players will help bring about what they want.

Amphetryon
2015-03-26, 02:48 PM
Here's the thing: On a certain level, every choice that every Character makes in a TTRPG is a metagame decision. A Player who knows that Lolth is messing with his Character and chooses not to act on that knowledge is metagaming exactly as much as the Player who knows that Lolth is messing with his Character and chooses to act on that knowledge. If the Player himself doesn't know, and instead finds out through a Knowledge check of some sort, that "roll a DC 10 Religion check" is a metagame construct, rather than something the Character does. If the Player himself doesn't know, and instead finds out because a particular NPC divulges the information via prophecy or 'accidentally' letting it slip in casual tavern conversation or whatever, that's still a metagame construct, as the NPC talking to the Player is voiced by the DM, aka that guy across the table with the Funyun crumbs on his shirt and the wild look in his eye of someone who has downed one too many caffeinated beverages in the past half-hour.

Characters that engage in zero metagame behavior have a REALLY difficult time acting at all, let alone acting in any way that meaningfully advances any sort of plot, whether that plot is what the DM had in mind or one entirely derived from the Character's actions (which are the decisions of the Player).

Beta Centauri
2015-03-26, 02:57 PM
Characters that engage in zero metagame behavior have a REALLY difficult time acting at all, let alone acting in any way that meaningfully advances any sort of plot, whether that plot is what the DM had in mind or one entirely derived from the Character's actions (which are the decisions of the Player). This is what I'm saying. It's not about "metagaming" it's about getting around the challenge or plot the GM had in mind. In Star Trek, it takes a while for Data to get that the point to playing Sherlock Holmes on the Holodeck is not to win (which he can do trivially) but by playing through. He doesn't initially get why one would do that.

In improv there's a concept referred to as "puppet and puppetmaster," meaning that the person playing the character on stage has to retain some concept of the theatricality of a scene. It might make sense for a character to turn its back on the audience, but the actor needs to "cheat out" (note the phrasing). There might not be a good reason for the character to lose an argument, but the actor needs to find one.

I know some actors and some players strive for total immersion, and I'm not going to say it's not possible, but mostly there has to be at least some metathought going on.

If someone "metagames" in my game, I will come up with my own reason why they know what they know, so that suddenly it's not metagaming anymore. If someone doesn't want to metagame, but doesn't want to not metagame, I'll give them an out, usually a reason why it's okay for the character to act in a way that, looked at strictly, they otherwise wouldn't.

Flickerdart
2015-03-26, 04:26 PM
1. D&D exploration campaign where he plays a half-drow who was raised by humans and had no contact with Lolth, he got the Touch because the Spider Queen's schemes, but suddendly he remembered that he had the gift and tried to contact her via divination and rituals, so... In case you didn't notice, contacting a deity he doesn't know that exist isn't player knowledge. He got the touch when born, by the way.
The character might not know about Lolth specifically, but if he's had her Touch since he was born, he could have recently become more awakened to it or whatever. It's less "oh let me call Lolth's number" and more "this feels right" because of Lolth's influence.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-26, 04:53 PM
The character might not know about Lolth specifically, but if he's had her Touch since he was born, he could have recently become more awakened to it or whatever. It's less "oh let me call Lolth's number" and more "this feels right" because of Lolth's influence. A good example of finding a creative way to make problematic metagaming less problematic. If the GM didn't want the character to take that action, though, the GM's less likely to look for solutions like this.

Darth Ultron
2015-03-26, 05:35 PM
Characters that engage in zero metagame behavior have a REALLY difficult time acting at all, let alone acting in any way that meaningfully advances any sort of plot, whether that plot is what the DM had in mind or one entirely derived from the Character's actions (which are the decisions of the Player).

I think the goal should be zero metagame. The game works best when both the player and character know nothing.

Metagame really reenforced the game aspect of the RPG, and that is bad. Then you can often get a player that is just sort of reacting to things that happen to the character. And very often in bland, boring and very detached ways. When the GM says to a player ''your scared'', all too often the player(who is not scared) will just have their character ''act scared and stuff'. But when the player is scared, you get a much better reaction and better gameplay.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-26, 05:52 PM
I think the goal should be zero metagame. The game works best when both the player and character know nothing. Not reliably, and not for everyone. I know this is the preferred approach for a lot of people, but even they resort to minimally necessary metagaming.[/quote]


Metagame really reenforced the game aspect of the RPG, and that is bad. I don't see why. It is a game.


Then you can often get a player that is just sort of reacting to things that happen to the character. And very often in bland, boring and very detached ways. When the GM says to a player ''your scared'', all too often the player(who is not scared) will just have their character ''act scared and stuff'. But when the player is scared, you get a much better reaction and better gameplay. I don't see how that's necessarily better. I don't want the players scared, because scared players have difficulty focusing on the game, and have more of an incentive to cheat in order to avoid being scared. The only time they don't is when they want to be scared, in which case they aren't going to metagame anyway. Players who are actually grieving are going to be in actual denial and delivering actual blame on people at the table. I don't see how someone can roleplay their character as doing the same things, if they're too busy doing them themselves.

Striving to match player emotion to character emotion is only one way to play, and not one everyone goes for. I might want the characters to be utterly miserable and disheartened about something, but I'd want the players to be grinning and high-fiving at the same thing. I want them to want what's happening to be happening, not going through the stages of grief. A player who is is enjoying what's happening (even if it's a terrible thing) is engaged, not detached, and will roleplay their character in a way that embraces and builds up the scene, rather than trying to deny and prevent it.

Besides which, just knowing what's going to happen doesn't prevent emotional reaction. It's common for people to feel tension while watching a movie, even if they've seen it dozens of times. It's not as simple as knowing or not knowing that something is coming.

Amphetryon
2015-03-26, 06:02 PM
I think the goal should be zero metagame. The game works best when both the player and character know nothing.

Metagame really reenforced the game aspect of the RPG, and that is bad. Then you can often get a player that is just sort of reacting to things that happen to the character. And very often in bland, boring and very detached ways. When the GM says to a player ''your scared'', all too often the player(who is not scared) will just have their character ''act scared and stuff'. But when the player is scared, you get a much better reaction and better gameplay.

Please describe a situation where the Character acts with no input from the Player, and while not under NPC influence. That would be a 'zero metagame' behavioral situation.

As for 'being scared' as an option? The Player is not being faced down by actual, live Trolls with claws dripping blood, isn't being shot at by a Bounty Hunter armed with a genuine laser cannon, didn't just step on a tile that looked exactly like every other tile only to have the entire floor in front of her fall away to reveal mounds of writhing snakes. . . but the Character quite reasonably could have. Expecting the Player to ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE the emotions and visceral responses of a Character that exists inside the collective head-space of the people at the gaming table is. . . a very tall order, unlikely to produce the results you're apparently setting as your baseline expectation.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-26, 06:09 PM
a very tall order, unlikely to produce the results you're apparently setting as your baseline expectation. To be fair, I understand that some people are able to accomplish it, or at least they're able to convince each other that they're all accomplishing it. It gets a little hokey for my taste, dipping into things like neurolinguistic programming to achieve a high-level of immersion. They (claim to) feel the actual feelings of the character, yet act only in terms of the character, not the player. I really don't think the designers are expecting people to do that, and I don't think that's a common way to play, but people do play that way, supposedly.

Amphetryon
2015-03-26, 06:33 PM
To be fair, I understand that some people are able to accomplish it, or at least they're able to convince each other that they're all accomplishing it. It gets a little hokey for my taste, dipping into things like neurolinguistic programming to achieve a high-level of immersion. They (claim to) feel the actual feelings of the character, yet act only in terms of the character, not the player. I really don't think the designers are expecting people to do that, and I don't think that's a common way to play, but people do play that way, supposedly.

Until such folks are able to be sated by the food described by the GM - who, herself, must have no role outside of the game, lest her participation be on a metagame level - and show the bruises of the combats that took place inside their heads, I'll find such claims difficult to put stock in.

TheIronGolem
2015-03-26, 06:36 PM
When the GM says to a player ''your scared'', all too often the player(who is not scared) will just have their character ''act scared and stuff'.

Yes, this is called "roleplaying".

Also, a GM who says to a player "your(sic) scared" had better be referring to a concrete game mechanic, because otherwise he's overstepping his bounds and the player is right to ignore the GM and decide how the character feels.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-26, 06:55 PM
Until such folks are able to be sated by the food described by the GM - who, herself, must have no role outside of the game, lest her participation be on a metagame level - and show the bruises of the combats that took place inside their heads, I'll find such claims difficult to put stock in. Oh, same here, though from a slightly different direction: Do the players stomachs grumble when their characters are hungry? Do they become maddened when something drives the character insane?

What I do know is that there's no point in telling people that they don't feel what they claim to be feeling. But there's also no requirement to believe they're feeling it, either.

NichG
2015-03-26, 07:42 PM
If you want to get visceral reactions out of players, you're not going to make progress in that direction by telling them what to feel or trying to guilt them for not feeling the same thing as their characters anyhow. If that's the target, then framing the discussion in the context of metagaming isn't really productive, because the player can't consciously choose to actually not know things, they can only make a conscious effort to not act on that knowledge. So 'you're metagaming, stop it and be scared already' is pointless.

You can evoke real responses from players, but never overtly. The most common one that most people figure out how to do is the sensation of righteous anger - basically, it's just good villain design. If you know how to make villains that your players love to hate, then that means you know how to evoke a real feeling of righteous anger in your players.

Often, in order to get real reactions, you really do need to explicitly acknowledge the difference between player and character, and then as the GM you can act as the translation layer which adapts things to match the out-of-game mood with the in-game mood. To do so, you have to realize that the player and the character are different - what scares the player is not going to be the same as abstract descriptions of things that would scare them if they were there, or even things that scare their character. So the GM can act as the layer in between - using music, dramatic pacing, suspense, etc to create an environment that is more evocative to fear responses; or often, use existential dread as a replacement for visceral terror - the player knows that nothing will kill them right now, but if you create a situation for their character where the player's mind fills in the blanks in very pessimistic ways, that can be a substitute.

Anyhow, there's nothing mystical about any of this. It's just recognizing that players have emotions too, but that what they see is different than what the characters see. Asking for too fine-grained a match between the two isn't going to work, but you can do a lot with broad strokes.

Amphetryon
2015-03-26, 09:32 PM
Oh, same here, though from a slightly different direction: Do the players stomachs grumble when their characters are hungry? Do they become maddened when something drives the character insane?

What I do know is that there's no point in telling people that they don't feel what they claim to be feeling. But there's also no requirement to believe they're feeling it, either.

I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I had a DM actually get angry with me because I raised my voice while roleplaying the Rage of a Barbarian.

Pex
2015-03-26, 10:22 PM
There are two other types of metagame.

1) The player knows something out of character and his character should know as well.

2) The character should know something in character but the player hasn't a clue.

A common example of the first is knowing about monsters. Characters have lived and studied in the world. They are going to know about at least some of the creatures in it. Not every single creature is a complete unknown. Player characters are not incompetent know nothings. 3E handled it with Knowledge checks. You can do the same in 5E. Success of the roll is the game mechanic that lets a player use his knowledge in character. If the player actually doesn't know a monster statistic, he was aware enough out of character to have asked the DM for a roll to get the information if successful. Legendary BBEGs and some not Legendary but Important are obviously not so easily learned. It's a campaign plot point to learn about them through adventuring, not a die roll. This is not about them. This is about the ogre, the troll, the wraith, the medusa, etc.

It shouldn't only be a Knowledge roll because that favors the spellcasters and most likely wizards. It can also be a Survival roll, especially for creatures that live in the wilderness. Perhaps those proficient in the skill get Advantage but anyone can make a check. Perhaps being Proficient allows for a lower DC to make the check.

As for the second, it usually pertains to new players but not exclusively. If the party knows they have a month long journey to their adventure destination, they don't necessarily have to say they stock up on food. It's a game style and some people do like taking care of minutiae. That's fine, but even then just the flow of the game being played might mean no one said "Oh, by the way, I stock up on rations.", the party doesn't starve to death. Scarce resource scenarios are an adventure plot point, not a gotcha.

Similarly, searching a room. The Investigation check says how successful a character was in finding something if something was to be found. It shouldn't be necessary for the player to say "I search the bed, I check the sheets, I check the pillow, I look in the pillow case, I look under the bed, I check the door, I look at the hinges, I search the dresser, etc., but then the DM thinks to himself, "Ha! He never said he checked the closet so he never finds the treasure chest." Also, it is the rogue player's responsibility to say he searches for traps. It is not his responsibility to orate precisely how. His skill check determines the success to notice the trip wire before accidentally triggering it and not autofail because the player didn't specify looking for a trip wire, pressure plate, dart hole, poison gas bubble, or whatever.

Flickerdart
2015-03-26, 10:28 PM
The metagame is crucial - it is the reason players need to think "why would my character accept this quest" instead of "why would my character refuse this quest." It's why parties of diverse individuals stay together and stay balanced between one another. It's why players and DMs decide to use or not use particular abilities in order to maximize the group's enjoyment of what is fundamentally just a game.

Refusing the metagame leads to Tippyverses, where all individual actors act rationally to maximize the achievement of their desires through every tool available to them.

Thrudd
2015-03-26, 10:47 PM
The metagame is crucial - it is the reason players need to think "why would my character accept this quest" instead of "why would my character refuse this quest." It's why parties of diverse individuals stay together and stay balanced between one another. It's why players and DMs decide to use or not use particular abilities in order to maximize the group's enjoyment of what is fundamentally just a game.

Refusing the metagame leads to Tippyverses, where all individual actors act rationally to maximize the achievement of their desires through every tool available to them.

The metagame is crucial outside the game, as in the players deciding to play the game in the first place and create characters that will want to participate in the premise of the game and work together. Once the game has begun, metagame knowledge should not be much required. The characters should be acting according to their motives and personalities to achieve their desires, as rationally as they are able, and the game should be designed with that purpose in mind. The player should be pretty much always be thinking "what would my character do, and what do they want?".

The character should take the quest because they will gain something they want by participating in it, not because the player knows the DM wants them to (although that may also be true). A quest that requires metagame reasoning to work is poorly conceived on the part of the DM.

goto124
2015-03-27, 12:23 AM
I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I had a DM actually get angry with me because I raised my voice while roleplaying the Rage of a Barbarian.

So the DM Raged too? :P

Beta Centauri
2015-03-27, 12:23 AM
A quest that requires metagame reasoning to work is poorly conceived on the part of the DM. That's true... if one accepts the definition that metagaming shouldn't be required. You're saying that the players should do something, and if they can't or don't do it it's bad. But nothing really proves that it's bad or its what the players should do, at least not to the degree that you and other imply. I've never read anything that says that once the game starts nothing further can be established about the characters or the world.

I'll accept that a GM can make, prior to play, something that hooks the characters by their backgrounds and dispositions, or whatever, but that's highly superficial and simplistic. The character wants X, and this adventure provides X (and also Y and Z for the other characters). It's very stimulus/response, very lock and key. I much prefer, when some fact is offered to the players, that they not only see where it can match up to the basic receptors on their characters, but that they do what they can to make it stick harder. Player A wants glory, and there's glory in combating the invading orc horde - plus, Player A says, one of the lieutenants of the chieftan killed character A's cousin, so there's a personal element, too. Player B wants money, and there's payment for combating the orc horde - plus, Player B says, there's a monastery in the path of the invaders and he doesn't want to see the place sacked, adding another personal element. Or maybe character A's cousin was character B's friend. Whatever. The point is that to require a "well conceived" quest to be one with all the details worked out before hand, is a pretty narrow approach. It may be what you strive for, but there are lots of ways to do it.

draken50
2015-03-27, 01:07 AM
Frankly I consider metagaming in many respects to be good, with one very notable exception.

For instance metagaming that results in the following things often occurs.

Getting the party together: "Hey, let's talk to that PC looking guy"
Keeping the party together:"Instead of splitting up, why don't we... not... do that."
Resolving interpersonal conflict:"I suppose the money you stole from that orphanage is for a higher cause."
Not giving up: "I'm sure there's a way out of this pit"

Then there are knowledge's, I personally don't care if a player has knowledge their character doesn't have as a skill. I don't like "But your character doesn't know that" as a way to force behavior on a player/their character. Additionally, if its setting information that could be a problem, I tend to play with it, create exceptions so that players can't just say: "That guy is evil!"

The only kind of metagaming I don't abide is narrative/storytelling based metagaming. Though I do, often have tools to resolve those kinds of problems it often results in the offending player being excluded from the session or more likely the game entirely.

This kind of stuff:
"I kill the kings adviser, because he's totally the bad guy even though I have no proof and it's the first session, but he's the bad guy, you know he's the bad guy."

Full disclosure: I do not run PVP games or use PC antagonists, and tell my players beforehand I expect them and their characters to band together to overcome the obstacles I create. Additionally, I inform them that I prefer that players avoid splitting the party to avoid having stretches with non-participatory players.

I can absolutely see where metagaming would be a problem in a PVP game.

NichG
2015-03-27, 04:01 AM
The metagame is crucial outside the game, as in the players deciding to play the game in the first place and create characters that will want to participate in the premise of the game and work together. Once the game has begun, metagame knowledge should not be much required. The characters should be acting according to their motives and personalities to achieve their desires, as rationally as they are able, and the game should be designed with that purpose in mind. The player should be pretty much always be thinking "what would my character do, and what do they want?".

The character should take the quest because they will gain something they want by participating in it, not because the player knows the DM wants them to (although that may also be true). A quest that requires metagame reasoning to work is poorly conceived on the part of the DM.

Whether or not the DM has made a mistake isn't relevant to determining what action you, as a player, should do. Its a reality of the world that people are not perfect - DMs will conceive plots poorly, write things into corners, not foresee potential pitfalls of PC interactions, etc.

So you can sit there and say 'well, that's not my fault' but have to live with the bad gaming that results, or you can actually take actions which try to help repair the situation. From the point of view of the players choosing their actions, whether or not the fault lies with the DM is irrelevant. Once things have gone wrong, if the players have the ability to repair the situation then choosing not to use that in order to stand on a point of principle is a mistake too.

Amphetryon
2015-03-27, 05:20 AM
The metagame is crucial outside the game, as in the players deciding to play the game in the first place and create characters that will want to participate in the premise of the game and work together. Once the game has begun, metagame knowledge should not be much required. The characters should be acting according to their motives and personalities to achieve their desires, as rationally as they are able, and the game should be designed with that purpose in mind. The player should be pretty much always be thinking "what would my character do, and what do they want?".

The character should take the quest because they will gain something they want by participating in it, not because the player knows the DM wants them to (although that may also be true). A quest that requires metagame reasoning to work is poorly conceived on the part of the DM.

How are the Characters acting, without input from the Players? How are the Characters gaining something, that isn't expressed mechanically within the confines of playing a TTRPG? If the GM's primary motivation is moving the game forward and allowing the Players to have both agency and a good time, how does the Character (since the Player's decisions are based on playing a game) embark on a quest for reasons that exclude the GM wanting them to take a quest?

Mr Beer
2015-03-27, 05:27 AM
I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I had a DM actually get angry with me because I raised my voice while roleplaying the Rage of a Barbarian.

Depends on the level of voice raising you did. If you just dialled it up with a dramatic tone, that's fine ofc. If I had a player belting out a primal Braveheart-style warcry at maximum possible volume, I'd be pissed.

Thrudd
2015-03-27, 09:03 AM
That's true... if one accepts the definition that metagaming shouldn't be required. You're saying that the players should do something, and if they can't or don't do it it's bad. But nothing really proves that it's bad or its what the players should do, at least not to the degree that you and other imply. I've never read anything that says that once the game starts nothing further can be established about the characters or the world.

I'll accept that a GM can make, prior to play, something that hooks the characters by their backgrounds and dispositions, or whatever, but that's highly superficial and simplistic. The character wants X, and this adventure provides X (and also Y and Z for the other characters). It's very stimulus/response, very lock and key.

Certainly, characters can change over the course of the game. They should adjust to the world based on their experiences, and the world adjusts to them. But this should happen in-character, as a result of the events of the game. Evil characters can have a change of heart and turn good, characters that are greedy can learn to care about others. But the change should not be forced or assumed by the DM as a prerequisite for the quest of the day.

If you have to alter a character, without established cause, in order for the game to work, somebody has messed up prior to the session starting. For a simplistic example, my evil character shouldn't have to suddenly turn good in order to want to participate. Either I should not have made an evil character, or the DM should not be running an adventure that requires good characters.

Preferably, the DM doesn't need to "hook" characters into things with specific background information, but gives them a world in which there are ways for them to pursue their goals, and allow them to do that in whatever way they see fit. In this case, the more generic and long term the motives, the better. Want to gain glory and become famous hero. Want to get rich and be a king of my own kingdom. Want to learn every spell and become the most powerful wizard. Want to protect the realm from all threats for the glory of god. Those are things a DM can work with in the long term. Background stuff like "my sister is missing" and "find the men that killed my family" and "recover a missing heirloom" are nice, but are very one-shot motives.



Whether or not the DM has made a mistake isn't relevant to determining what action you, as a player, should do. Its a reality of the world that people are not perfect - DMs will conceive plots poorly, write things into corners, not foresee potential pitfalls of PC interactions, etc.

So you can sit there and say 'well, that's not my fault' but have to live with the bad gaming that results, or you can actually take actions which try to help repair the situation. From the point of view of the players choosing their actions, whether or not the fault lies with the DM is irrelevant. Once things have gone wrong, if the players have the ability to repair the situation then choosing not to use that in order to stand on a point of principle is a mistake too.

Yes, in that case I would call the metagaming an unfortunate necessity, rather than a "good thing".
Mostly, I would strive to avoid it with clear communication before the game begins, so that it is only a serious mistake that will result in such a situation, rather than an ongoing condition.


How are the Characters acting, without input from the Players? How are the Characters gaining something, that isn't expressed mechanically within the confines of playing a TTRPG? If the GM's primary motivation is moving the game forward and allowing the Players to have both agency and a good time, how does the Character (since the Player's decisions are based on playing a game) embark on a quest for reasons that exclude the GM wanting them to take a quest?

A player choosing the character's actions based on the character's personality and motives isn't metagaming, that's role playing. The DM wants to set up situations where it will make sense for the characters to participate, so the players can make decisions in-character rather than solely for metagame reasons, in order to create an immersive role playing experience as much as possible.

It would be undesireable, if every time the DM presented a plot hook, the player had to alter the character's outlook in order to explain why they should participate.

Such a condition existing is caused by lack of communication at the outset of the game, regarding its premise and the sort of characters that are appropriate. If the pre-game is done correctly, metagaming reasons to participate should be minimal, replaced by role playing.

Some game formats may include pre-game metagaming from session to session or at certain intervals. Such as an episodic adventure format, at the start of each adventure, the DM may describe the setting and ask the players to come up with reasons why their character is there, ie: "you're all on a ship heading south through the ocean, tell me why..."

But that is technically the pre-game. Once the game is underway, it should be all roleplaying.

Jay R
2015-03-27, 09:36 AM
I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I had a DM actually get angry with me because I raised my voice while roleplaying the Rage of a Barbarian.

Well, of course. The Barbarian is not sitting down in a room playing a game with friends. You are.

I would also get annoyed if the player with a Fighter started swinging a sword, or the Thief player picked my pocket.

---------------------

In my current game, my defense against metagaming was described in the campaign introduction as follows:


DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

Thrudd
2015-03-27, 09:44 AM
In my current game, my defense against metagaming was described in the campaign introduction as follows:

Mine is basically the same. I know people that have been playing too long, it's the only way to keep things fresh.

Flickerdart
2015-03-27, 09:56 AM
In my current game, my defense against metagaming was described in the campaign introduction as follows:
I feel like this steps from metagaming defense all the way into "how dare characters know anything about the world, this threatens my DM throne of power." Common knowledge is a thing.

Thrudd
2015-03-27, 10:03 AM
I feel like this steps from metagaming defense all the way into "how dare characters know anything about the world, this threatens my DM throne of power." Common knowledge is a thing.

And the players will be informed what common knowledge is available to their characters, and some can be presented in the form of knowledge or intelligence/wisdom checks of some sort.

The point is, when your players have twenty-thirty years of D&D experience under their belts, your options for building exciting/interesting games are limited if you keep using the same standard published material over and over again.

Jay R
2015-03-27, 10:31 AM
I feel like this steps from metagaming defense all the way into "how dare characters know anything about the world, this threatens my DM throne of power." Common knowledge is a thing.

The players don't know anything about the world even more than you suspect. In that game, all the players grew up in an isolated village deep in a haunted forest. They don't know world history, monster stats, or anything outside the village. Here's a further description:

You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.

The world is basically early medieval. You all speak a single language for which you (reasonably) have no name. If you learn another language, you’ll know more about what that means.

It’s a really small village. There are fewer than 100 people living there, which is smaller than it used to be. There are chickens, goats, sheep, a couple of oxen, but no horses or cows.

The village has a single road going out of town to the north and south, and you’ve never been on it. The only travel on it occurs when a few wagons go off to take food to market – and even that hasn’t happened in the last few seasons. Very rarely, a traveler may come through, and spend the night with the priest. You have all greedily listened to any stories these travelers tell. Your parents say this isn’t good for you – what’s here in the village is good enough for you, and all travelers are always liars, anyway.

The village is surrounded by a haunted forest nearby. You have occasionally gone a few hundred feet into it on a dare, but no further, and never at night. I will modify this (slightly) for any character who wishes to start as a Druid or Ranger. Nobody gets to know the modification unless they choose one of those classes.

The old folks in the village sometimes talk about how much better it was long ago. There was real travel, and real trade. Nobody knows what happened since.

You have heard many mutually conflicting tales of all kinds of marvelous heroes. You may assume that you have heard of any story of any hero you like – Gilgamesh, Oddysseus, Sigurd, Taliesin, Charlemagne, Lancelot, Robin Hood, Aragorn, Prester John, Baba Yaga, Prince Ōkuninushi, Br’er Rabbit, anyone. The old stories seem to imply that there have been several Ages of Heroes. Your parents don’t think these tales are good for you. Takes your mind off farming.

I will answer any reasonable questions about the village and its denizens. You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)

Yes, exploring the world is a major part of the game as planned, and the players are enjoying it. They've had fun learning about goblins that are not D&D goblins, and have learned how to handle zombies when it's hard to pull a sword out of their dead flesh. The forest is no longer haunted, they have met the Fair Folk, and they are the heroes of several towns and villages.

But I have a question for you. What does this have to do with some assumed "DM throne of power"? Isn't that kind of an insulting term to apply to a campaign in which you have zero experience and almost no knowledge?

Amphetryon
2015-03-27, 10:47 AM
Well, of course. The Barbarian is not sitting down in a room playing a game with friends. You are.

I would also get annoyed if the player with a Fighter started swinging a sword, or the Thief player picked my pocket.

Ah, so using other than a flat monotone to express in-Character frustration is inappropriate, in your campaigns? Because "of course" reads as "any reasonable person would be upset with you for making your Barbarian Character sound frustrated, and you should know that."

Jay R
2015-03-27, 10:54 AM
Ah, so using other than a flat monotone to express in-Character frustration is inappropriate, in your campaigns?

No. One can actually speak perfectly naturally, with normal modulation, timbre, and pitch, not in a flat monotone, without raising one's voice.

Seerow
2015-03-27, 10:57 AM
Ah, so using other than a flat monotone to express in-Character frustration is inappropriate, in your campaigns? Because "of course" reads as "any reasonable person would be upset with you for making your Barbarian Character sound frustrated, and you should know that."

I just got hit hard by poe's law, and I'm not sure if it's from Amphetryon, Jay R, or both.

Broken Twin
2015-03-27, 11:07 AM
@Jay R: That actually sounds like a lot of fun. In fact, I may steal that blurb for my own usage...

-----------------

As to the barbarian voice debate, I think it all depends on whether such a thing is expected in your group. If you suddenly roar out of nowhere, with no prior voice roleplaying? I can imagine someone taking an issue with that, for no other reason than not appreciating the volume. If you're playing in a group that frequently acts out their characters personalities, than such a thing would be encouraged, if not expected.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-27, 11:51 AM
Certainly, characters can change over the course of the game. That's not what I'm saying and not what I'm talking about. I'm clearly talking about players making changes to the reality of the character and even the game world, in order to improve the game and make their engagement stronger.


But this should happen in-character, as a result of the events of the game. That's one way to do it, but it's not more valuable than another. There's no "should" here.


Evil characters can have a change of heart and turn good, characters that are greedy can learn to care about others. But the change should not be forced or assumed by the DM as a prerequisite for the quest of the day. I'm not sure how you got to this being a forced thing. My example was not about anyone being forced to do anything. The players were hooked based on their backgrounds, but they went further and found a way to drive the hook deeper, thereby making the game better if for not other reason than they had deeper engagement.


If you have to alter a character, without established cause, in order for the game to work, somebody has messed up prior to the session starting. For a simplistic example, my evil character shouldn't have to suddenly turn good in order to want to participate. Either I should not have made an evil character, or the DM should not be running an adventure that requires good characters. Okay, I see what you're saying, but that's a much different issue. No one in that example is necessarily saying that a character needs to act in a way contrary to their design, just that the restrictions on character design weren't adequately conveyed. It would be like someone making a character with a disallowed race: no one would suggest that the character be turned into a member of an acceptable race. At most, they'd ask that the character be remade and imagined to have always been that class, or that another character be used.


Preferably, to you


the DM doesn't need to "hook" characters into things with specific background information, but gives them a world in which there are ways for them to pursue their goals, and allow them to do that in whatever way they see fit. In this case, the more generic and long term the motives, the better. for you.


Want to gain glory and become famous hero. Want to get rich and be a king of my own kingdom. Want to learn every spell and become the most powerful wizard. Want to protect the realm from all threats for the glory of god. Those are things a DM can work with in the long term. Background stuff like "my sister is missing" and "find the men that killed my family" and "recover a missing heirloom" are nice, but are very one-shot motives. Which is fine. After they achieve that motive, they can come up with another. Any of those things could be part of a larger plot, for example.


A player choosing the character's actions based on the character's personality and motives isn't metagaming, that's role playing. The DM wants to set up situations where it will make sense for the characters to participate, so the players can make decisions in-character rather than solely for metagame reasons, in order to create an immersive role playing experience as much as possible. It's still metagaming. The metagame is "Don't Give Anyone A Reason to Suspect That You're Metagaming."


It would be undesireable, if every time the DM presented a plot hook, the player had to alter the character's outlook in order to explain why they should participate. That's an extreme no one is talking about. But just as you suggest having generic, long term goals, a character can have a generic, flexible background. TV shows do this all the time. We learn a character's background bit by bit, as the story requires. When it becomes relevant or useful for the writer to reveal more background, they do. The character hasn't changed, because the new information doesn't (or anyway, isn't intended to) contradict anything else that has been established. So, if I don't see a reason why my character would go on a quest, I'll make something up that gives him that reason. My character isn't in it for the money in the long term, maybe, but he's just heard that the orphanage run by a priestess he's got a crush on needs money, so he's in.


Some game formats may include pre-game metagaming from session to session or at certain intervals. Such as an episodic adventure format, at the start of each adventure, the DM may describe the setting and ask the players to come up with reasons why their character is there, ie: "you're all on a ship heading south through the ocean, tell me why..."

But that is technically the pre-game. Once the game is underway, it should be all roleplaying. There is no "should." There's no reason why that exact same sort of question couldn't or shouldn't be asked as any point it would prove useful, and lots of reasons why it should. The primary reason is that having multiple brains independently working to create something is very often faster and easier than having one, particularly if those brains are coming up with something they will directly benefit from. Sure, the GM could come up with a reason, but what often happens, even to good GMs? "I don't see why we would do this?" "My character would never be in this situation," etc.

The start of the game is not some sacrosanct event horizon. If you insist that it must be, then what you're insisting on is multiple starts and stops to the game so that the "game" runs as well as it can. Oh, it can run without those, but it's not going to be smoothly unless the players are metagaming their little minds out in an effort to find ways and reasons to go along. Even in the case of those broad goals you had in mind, it's just as plausible for someone to say "I don't think this will help my quest" as it is to say "I think this will help my quest." They do the latter, because it moves the game along. And that's metagaming. And that's a positive thing.

Thrudd
2015-03-27, 12:55 PM
That's not what I'm saying and not what I'm talking about. I'm clearly talking about players making changes to the reality of the character and even the game world, in order to improve the game and make their engagement stronger.

That's one way to do it, but it's not more valuable than another. There's no "should" here.

I'm not sure how you got to this being a forced thing. My example was not about anyone being forced to do anything. The players were hooked based on their backgrounds, but they went further and found a way to drive the hook deeper, thereby making the game better if for not other reason than they had deeper engagement.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but that's a much different issue. No one in that example is necessarily saying that a character needs to act in a way contrary to their design, just that the restrictions on character design weren't adequately conveyed. It would be like someone making a character with a disallowed race: no one would suggest that the character be turned into a member of an acceptable race. At most, they'd ask that the character be remade and imagined to have always been that class, or that another character be used.

to you

for you.

Which is fine. After they achieve that motive, they can come up with another. Any of those things could be part of a larger plot, for example.

It's still metagaming. The metagame is "Don't Give Anyone A Reason to Suspect That You're Metagaming."

That's an extreme no one is talking about. But just as you suggest having generic, long term goals, a character can have a generic, flexible background. TV shows do this all the time. We learn a character's background bit by bit, as the story requires. When it becomes relevant or useful for the writer to reveal more background, they do. The character hasn't changed, because the new information doesn't (or anyway, isn't intended to) contradict anything else that has been established. So, if I don't see a reason why my character would go on a quest, I'll make something up that gives him that reason. My character isn't in it for the money in the long term, maybe, but he's just heard that the orphanage run by a priestess he's got a crush on needs money, so he's in.

There is no "should." There's no reason why that exact same sort of question couldn't or shouldn't be asked as any point it would prove useful, and lots of reasons why it should. The primary reason is that having multiple brains independently working to create something is very often faster and easier than having one, particularly if those brains are coming up with something they will directly benefit from. Sure, the GM could come up with a reason, but what often happens, even to good GMs? "I don't see why we would do this?" "My character would never be in this situation," etc.

The start of the game is not some sacrosanct event horizon. If you insist that it must be, then what you're insisting on is multiple starts and stops to the game so that the "game" runs as well as it can. Oh, it can run without those, but it's not going to be smoothly unless the players are metagaming their little minds out in an effort to find ways and reasons to go along. Even in the case of those broad goals you had in mind, it's just as plausible for someone to say "I don't think this will help my quest" as it is to say "I think this will help my quest." They do the latter, because it moves the game along. And that's metagaming. And that's a positive thing.
"To you/for you" goes without saying, because I'm the one that said those things.

I see what you're saying, in general. Some of what you are calling "metagaming", I would call "desire to play the game". Of course, the player should have a character that will choose to engage in the premise of the game, otherwise nothing will happen. This is established when they make the character. If the game is an episodic, the players know that and "My character would never be there " is basically saying "I don't want to play". The answer would be "ok, then make a character that does want to be there."

I'm thinking of "metagaming" as applying out of character information while playing the game, informing the actions of your character.
IE: I go to the town, because I know the DM wants me to inspite of the fact that I can't think of any reason my character should do it.
I fight the monster, even though it makes more sense for my character to run away and try a different approach, because I know this is the DM's big set piece boss battle.
I look for a hidden gem or jewelry box, because this is obviously a lich and it must have a phylactery somewhere, even though my character doesn't know what a lich is and this is the only one he's ever seen.

Some of these things can be avoided by making more open ended campaigns. The DM should generally not be expecting or requiring the characters to go or do anything specific, so the players shouldn't ever have cause to think "the DM wants me to do this specific thing, so I better think of why my character wants that."

In terms of motives, usually the adventures/quests the players are presented with will clearly have something the characters want. Want to get rich? There will be no question that the adventures you choose will have significant monetary reward. Want magic? The world is full of ancient ruins where magic items and lost scrolls are found, that's where you're going. If there weren't lots of such places, I would not have let you create a character with those motives.
If I've created a world where the players can't find anything their characters want to engage in, then something went wrong. metagaming might be a solution to correct this error.

Choosing to engage in the game by having your character make logical choices (for them) in pursuit of their goals, is called playing a role playing game.

Amphetryon
2015-03-27, 01:08 PM
"To you/for you" goes without saying, because I'm the one that said those things.

I see what you're saying, in general. Some of what you are calling "metagaming", I would call "desire to play the game". Of course, the player should have a character that will choose to engage in the premise of the game, otherwise nothing will happen. This is established when they make the character. If the game is an episodic, the players know that and "My character would never be there " is basically saying "I don't want to play". The answer would be "ok, then make a character that does want to be there."

I'm thinking of "metagaming" as applying out of character information while playing the game, informing the actions of your character.
IE: I go to the town, because I know the DM wants me to inspite of the fact that I can't think of any reason my character should do it.
I fight the monster, even though it makes more sense for my character to run away and try a different approach, because I know this is the DM's big set piece boss battle.
I look for a hidden gem or jewelry box, because this is obviously a lich and it must have a phylactery somewhere, even though my character doesn't know what a lich is and this is the only one he's ever seen.

In terms of motives, usually the adventures/quests the players are presented with will clearly have something the characters want. Want to get rich? There will be no question that the adventures you choose will have significant monetary reward. Want magic? The world is full of ancient ruins where magic items and lost scrolls are found, that's where you're going. If there weren't lots of such places, I would not have let you create a character with those motives.
If I've created a world where the players can't find anything their characters want to engage in, then something went wrong. metagaming might be a solution to correct this error.

Choosing to engage in the game by having your character make logical choices (for them) in pursuit of their goals, is called playing a role playing game.
The thing is, the Character doesn't have those motives. The Player assigns those motives to the Character, making the motives a metagame construct. "I, Rorik Ebonblade, wish to be the richest mercenary in all the land" is rooted in exactly the same motivation as "I, [Amphetryon,] wish to be able to write 'eleventy billion gold' in the Wealth slot on my Character sheet with the GM's express consent." The former is simply disguised under an additional layer of 'good game-speak.' A Character truly having motives that are without any knowledge or consent on the part of the Player is either impossible, so near to impossible as to be a statistical anomaly, or an indication of needing professional help from a mental health expert.

Red Fel
2015-03-27, 01:11 PM
I think the point is that there are levels. It's not a binary division between "what my character would do" and "what I, as a player, want my character to do." Part of the flaw in that analysis - and I'm not accusing anyone of having made such an analysis - is assuming that there is only one course, at any given time, that a character would take.

This is a role playing game. And your character, as a person, has to make decisions, just as you would. Sometimes, those decisions are binary - do this, or don't. Sometimes, they are multiple-choice questions - do A, do B, do C, or do none of the above. But sometimes, they are nuanced and complex - you could do A, B, C, some combination of them, none of them, or do any one of them in any number of ways.

That's where the slightest hint of metagaming comes in, and in this case, it's a highly tolerable level of metagame. This metagame is called "What can I do that's in line with my character, but still moves the game along and keeps everyone engaged?" This is the metagame that emerges from Wheaton's Law (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law). This is the metagame that emerges when the Giant suggests that you should decide to react differently (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html). This is a good metagame.

This illustrates that there are levels of metagame. When you decide to do what your character would do, but in such a way that it keeps the party together, that's good metagame. When you decide to do what your character would do, but in such a way that it allows the GM to move the plot forward, that's good metagame. When you decide to do what your character would do, but in such a way that everyone at the table has a good time, pat yourself on the back, because that's great metagame.

When you do something "because that's what my character would do," irrespective of player knowledge, that's good role playing. But when you do it knowing, as a player, that it will slow down the plot, frustrate the players or GM, or generally make things unpleasant (as opposed to challenging, which is a different thing), that may be good role playing, but it's being a bad role player. Some ability to use player knowledge, if for no other purpose than to keep the game from grinding to a halt, isn't a bad thing.

The problem isn't the use of metagame absolutely. It's the use of metagame beyond this. When you decide not to attack the monster, because you know from reading the manual that it only attacks when attacked, that's bad metagame. When you go straight for the spring when you enter the forest, because you know this GM and you know he always puts plot points in a spring in the middle of the forest, that's bad metagame. When you kill the vizier upon meeting him, because he's a vizier and all viziers are evil and he had a goatee for goodness' sakes, that's bad metagame. Funny as hell, but bad metagame.

And as an aside, I don't think that anyone should be allowed to play a Barbarian - or any class, race, or concept with MUSCLE-BULGING RAGE as its central focus - without the ability to produce a barbaric yawp on command.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-27, 02:04 PM
"To you/for you" goes without saying, because I'm the one that said those things. Yeah, I know that line, and it doesn't fly on this forum. Stating preference as fact is frowned upon. I know it's hard to resist, but please try.


I see what you're saying, in general. Some of what you are calling "metagaming", I would call "desire to play the game". Right, and that's "meta." Anything the player wants, I think we can agree, is "outside" the game, is "meta." "Desire to play the game" isn't a "game," so much, but it's part of the social scene. "How do I convey, via my in-game choices, that I'm interested in and enjoying the game, and am being friendly and sociable as a player" is what it amounts to. That's all still metagaming.

I'm trying to get us away from the term "metagaming" meaning a bad thing that only every breaks immersion and makes the game worse. It's not.


Of course, the player should have a character that will choose to engage in the premise of the game, otherwise nothing will happen. This is established when they make the character. If the game is an episodic, the players know that and "My character would never be there " is basically saying "I don't want to play". The answer would be "ok, then make a character that does want to be there." It can also be established during play.


I'm thinking of "metagaming" as applying out of character information while playing the game, informing the actions of your character. Agreed.


IE: I go to the town, because I know the DM wants me to inspite of the fact that I can't think of any reason my character should do it. Solved by: thinking of a reason your character would do it, or asking for help thinking of a reason. Result: it's no longer metagaming, but roleplaying.


I fight the monster, even though it makes more sense for my character to run away and try a different approach, because I know this is the DM's big set piece boss battle. Same solution: think of a reason why retreat doesn't seem like a good idea to the character. Maybe they're just mistaken.


I look for a hidden gem or jewelry box, because this is obviously a lich and it must have a phylactery somewhere, even though my character doesn't know what a lich is and this is the only one he's ever seen. Same basic solution, though it helps not to paint oneself into a corner like that. Just don't make a background that specifically states, in detail, what the player does or doesn't know. For lots of characters, it's going to be plausible that they at least know what a lich is.

Beyond that, as with the other cases, maybe there is a reason the character would know to look for something like that. This is a bit more adversarial, as now it really is up against what the GM wants, rather than aiding it. The GM has less incentive to help the metagaming become roleplaying. But they still could, or could find a compromise, especially if it's clear that the player is more not all that interested in a game in which they're facing an undefeatable enemy.


Some of these things can be avoided by making more open ended campaigns. The DM should generally not be expecting or requiring the characters to go or do anything specific, so the players shouldn't ever have cause to think "the DM wants me to do this specific thing, so I better think of why my character wants that." I agree, but there's another aspect to it that your examples didn't touch on:

"I want to do this specific thing, so I better think of why my character wants that."

And I think we all do that, to a degree, both before and during play, and both consciously and unconsciously. And I don't think it's an intrinsically bad thing for players to do what they want, and to find an in-character reason why they would do that.


In terms of motives, usually the adventures/quests the players are presented with will clearly have something the characters want. Want to get rich? There will be no question that the adventures you choose will have significant monetary reward. Want magic? The world is full of ancient ruins where magic items and lost scrolls are found, that's where you're going. If there weren't lots of such places, I would not have let you create a character with those motives.

If I've created a world where the players can't find anything their characters want to engage in, then something went wrong. metagaming might be a solution to correct this error. Exactly, but I feel like you're overstating how "wrong" and "erroneous" this is. It's perfectly normal and to be expected that a world will have gaps in it, because the world is not real, and to the degree it is real, it's conforming to the preferences of the GM which are informed by the preferences of the players which... are imperfect, ill-defined, and almost always poorly explained.

To chalk it up to error, of a kind that "should" be caught up front, is just going to make people feel bad and stressed, and like solving the problem is putting a shameful patch on it. In reality, that "patch" might be a far better answer than anyone could have come up with upfront. And this is, largely, how fictional worlds and characters are created.


Choosing to engage in the game by having your character make logical choices (for them) in pursuit of their goals, is called playing a role playing game. Fine. But, as is mentioned below, "logical" doesn't mean "this one thing is what my character would do." It's enough that the player and everyone at the table finds it plausible that the character would do that thing. And guess what: when what's going on in front of us is entertaining and engaging, our standard for what's "plausible" is much lower. This is why a brilliant rocket scientist can enjoy Star Trek: they know that what's going on is not "logical" but they enjoy it enough not to poke at it. Poking at it would just pull them out of they thing they're enjoying.


The thing is, the Character doesn't have those motives. The Player assigns those motives to the Character, making the motives a metagame construct. "I, Rorik Ebonblade, wish to be the richest mercenary in all the land" is rooted in exactly the same motivation as "I, [Amphetryon,] wish to be able to write 'eleventy billion gold' in the Wealth slot on my Character sheet with the GM's express consent." The former is simply disguised under an additional layer of 'good game-speak.' A Character truly having motives that are without any knowledge or consent on the part of the Player is either impossible, so near to impossible as to be a statistical anomaly, or an indication of needing professional help from a mental health expert. Eh, I think it's generally best to avoid any implication that someone might have a mental disorder.

I don't understand it and I'm rather disturbed by it, but I know people who will swear blind that they do undergo some sort of mental shift whereby they really aren't making any out-of-character considerations. I don't know how, and I doubt they really do it, but I can't really prove they don't. Even if I could, I bet they'd still never admit it.

And what's really wild is that if what their character does bothers another player, it's that player who is out of line, for taking in-game happenings personally. So, I strongly recommend not playing with people who think about the game drastically differently than you do.


I think the point is that there are levels. It's not a binary division between "what my character would do" and "what I, as a player, want my character to do." Part of the flaw in that analysis - and I'm not accusing anyone of having made such an analysis - is assuming that there is only one course, at any given time, that a character would take. Right, thank you. This is important.


When you do something "because that's what my character would do," irrespective of player knowledge, that's good role playing. But when you do it knowing, as a player, that it will slow down the plot, frustrate the players or GM, or generally make things unpleasant (as opposed to challenging, which is a different thing), that may be good role playing, but it's being a bad role player. Some ability to use player knowledge, if for no other purpose than to keep the game from grinding to a halt, isn't a bad thing. Yeah, the response I got from someone when I confronted them about annoying in-game behavior is that I was the bad roleplayer, because I was trying to resolve an in-game conflict out-of-game. The player claimed no responsibility for or control over the character and so talking to the player about it was pointless and foolish, according to them. Of course, I see that as a brilliant way to needle people via the game, but there's no way you'd ever get them to admit that. Fortunately, what he was doing was merely annoying and not abusive or disturbing, since by his logic he'd have no responsibility for that, either.

Since then, I make sure I know whether another person at the table is like this before I start playing with them. Neither of us is in the right, necessarily, but we're both going to make the other miserable.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-27, 03:35 PM
The metagame is crucial - it is the reason players need to think "why would my character accept this quest" instead of "why would my character refuse this quest." It's why parties of diverse individuals stay together and stay balanced between one another. It's why players and DMs decide to use or not use particular abilities in order to maximize the group's enjoyment of what is fundamentally just a game.

Refusing the metagame leads to Tippyverses, where all individual actors act rationally to maximize the achievement of their desires through every tool available to them.

Hah, no. What leads to a Tippyverse-like play (actual Tippyverse being impossible without specific game mechanics) is a bunch of logically inclined players who know their ruleset inside-out. Metagame or lack thereof is tangential to it. There's no direct link whatsoever between refusing to metagame and playing efficiently.

Most people who don't, or fail, to metagame in the way you describe are new players who haven't learned it yet. They usually can't be described as playing very rationally or maximizing anything either, because they haven't learned those either. The only thing in your statement that does hit the mark is that in absence of metagame, RPG characters tend to act more as inviduals than as a party, as the concept that player characters should act as a team is itself a metagame assumption, and one that can be rather trivially be done away with even in games that traditionally center around such play.

---

Back on topic, whenever a player tries to utilize information their character should be blatantly ignorant of, as a GM I just say "your character doesn't know that" and require them to come up with a different action, or at least a different justification. This doesn't mean I'm opposed to metagaming - quite the opposite. But it's the responsibility of the player to maintain plausible deniability and translate their decisions to legitimate in-game, in-character moves, no matter how much those moves are informed by metagame considerations in actuality.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-27, 03:56 PM
Back on topic, whenever a player tries to utilize information their character should be blatantly ignorant of, as a GM I just say "your character doesn't know that" and require them to come up with a different action, or at least a different justification. This doesn't mean I'm opposed to metagaming - quite the opposite. But it's the responsibility of the player to maintain plausible deniability and translate their decisions to legitimate in-game, in-character moves, no matter how much those moves are informed by metagame considerations in actuality. Why is is the responsibility of the player? That implies that it's not in anyone else's interest to maintain plausible deniability or translate those decisions, which in turn implies that those decisions are only ever inconvenient for others at the table. It also implies that there's some arbitrary bar that the player has to meet in order to get the GM's approval, and a bar like that can easily be moved out of the player's reach if the GM wants to do so.

Many is the time that I've been the GM and a player has wanted to do something that I thought was cool, but that the player couldn't justify. It used to be that I would say, yeah, sorry, your character wouldn't do that. These days, I try to help them come up with a reason. And why wouldn't I? I like what they're trying to do, and it doesn't matter to me where they get the idea for justifying it. And my bar is generally quite low: if the player thinks its a good justification, then my default is to agree. Why wouldn't it be?

The key example of this is the introduction of a new character into a group, especially if it has some trait that's offensive to another character. The player doesn't want to attack the other player's new character, but the character plausibly might. The player may feel they have no choice but to attack. That's when I think it's a good thing for another person at the table to offer some reason why the character wouldn't attack, either drawing from an existing fact about the game, or establishing some fact that is plausible and non-contradictory and would be known to the character.

I know some people would say, yeah, attacking him is logical, so let's see what happens, but that's what they enjoy: just seeing how the simulation plays out. Not everyone enjoys that, and I think it's reasonable that people get to spend their free time doing a thing they enjoy in a way they enjoy doing it. Of course, if the people involved can't agree on a way to enjoy it, then they'll probably have to part ways.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-27, 04:27 PM
Why? Because the player is at the table to play the game. Others might help, like you suggest, but ultimately it always boils down to the player making and justifying their decisions. Without fulfilling that responsibility, they're not really playing the game - others are doing it for them, and they might as well not be there.

As far as meeting arbitrary bars goes, in tradtional RPGs the GM is the sole dispenser of in-game information to player characters. It's part of their job to tell a character couldn't know something, and hence couldn't act on some information. In games without a GM, another player will have to set the bar, because not doing so will lead to paradoxes and kill verisimilitude. It's just something that needs to be done. You can shift around who at the table does it, but you can't do away with it.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-27, 05:14 PM
Why? Because the player is at the table to play the game. Others might help, like you suggest, but ultimately it always boils down to the player making and justifying their decisions. Without fulfilling that responsibility, they're not really playing the game - others are doing it for them, and they might as well not be there. There's more to the game and justifying why they're doing something. The game isn't about checking everyone's actions to make sure they're satisfactory. The game is about things happening, and looking for reasons for things not to happen, or to only happen in a way that the person most impacted by them doesn't enjoy is also not really playing the game.

But anyway, this isn't about players never being able to justify things. There's generally some key sticking point. Why would they go on the quest? Why would they trust the NPC? Why would they fight instead of running? Once they get over that, they're happy to play that out.

The reason there's that bar, really, is that the GM wants the player to play a specific way. They don't want the character to have knowledge of such and such, so they demand an explanation for how they could. If it can't be explained, they can't have it, and because the GM doesn't want them to have it, they won't help, even though they could.


As far as meeting arbitrary bars goes, in tradtional RPGs the GM is the sole dispenser of in-game information to player characters. It's part of their job to tell a character couldn't know something, and hence couldn't act on some information. Yes, that's what arbitrary means: the GM decides whether the character could know something or not. Even when there are knowledge checks involved, the GM generally gets to set the DC (and one of the biggest whines about 4th Edition is how players could just roll against a set DC to find out about creatures, snatching that control from the GM).

What you're saying in the paragraph above doesn't say anything about how good a justification the player has to give, just that the GM gets to decide that. So, great: in our respective games, we are the sole dispensers of in-game information to player characters. In both games, there's an attack by trolls and in both games a character attacks the trolls with fire.

In your game, I assume you'd then challenge the player on what their character knows about trolls. They might have to make a knowledge check, or just explain themselves, but you get to decide if a knowledge check is even allowed (maybe trolls only just appeared in the world, or something) or whether the explanation is adequate. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In my game, I might not even say anything. If I did, it would be mere curiosity, and I'd assume the fact of the matter up front. "Yes, your character knows about trolls and fire. How so?" I might say, and then either listen to their answer, or provide my own, or decide that it didn't really matter. I could put the player on the spot and demand an explanation, or simply say "No," but since I'm the sole dispenser of in-game information, after I hear the player's answer I can just reiterate that. Or, to save time, we could all just take it as read that the player's answer is what I would have said.

Would the encounter with the trolls then be trivialized in my game? Maybe, but because I play this way I don't design encounters that can be trivialized with a simple piece of knowledge.

Does this essentially let players do whatever they want, since they can know anything they want? Yes, but players who don't have to justify their ability to be capable and cool have much less of an incentive to grab every opportunity to be capable and cool and are quite content to let their characters get into dangerous situations, and even risk permanent character death. I've seen players even make situations far worse for their characters than I would ever dare to.

This isn't a way everyone is going to want to play, but anyone could play this way if they wanted, assuming a decent level of trust at the table. Did I mention that this approach builds trust like nothing else I've seen?

Thrudd
2015-03-27, 05:31 PM
There's more to the game and justifying why they're doing something. The game isn't about checking everyone's actions to make sure they're satisfactory. The game is about things happening, and looking for reasons for things not to happen, or to only happen in a way that the person most impacted by them doesn't enjoy is also not really playing the game.

But anyway, this isn't about players never being able to justify things. There's generally some key sticking point. Why would they go on the quest? Why would they trust the NPC? Why would they fight instead of running? Once they get over that, they're happy to play that out.

The reason there's that bar, really, is that the GM wants the player to play a specific way. They don't want the character to have knowledge of such and such, so they demand an explanation for how they could. If it can't be explained, they can't have it, and because the GM doesn't want them to have it, they won't help, even though they could.

Yes, that's what arbitrary means: the GM decides whether the character could know something or not. Even when there are knowledge checks involved, the GM generally gets to set the DC (and one of the biggest whines about 4th Edition is how players could just roll against a set DC to find out about creatures, snatching that control from the GM).

What you're saying in the paragraph above doesn't say anything about how good a justification the player has to give, just that the GM gets to decide that. So, great: in our respective games, we are the sole dispensers of in-game information to player characters. In both games, there's an attack by trolls and in both games a character attacks the trolls with fire.

In your game, I assume you'd then challenge the player on what their character knows about trolls. They might have to make a knowledge check, or just explain themselves, but you get to decide if a knowledge check is even allowed (maybe trolls only just appeared in the world, or something) or whether the explanation is adequate. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In my game, I might not even say anything. If I did, it would be mere curiosity, and I'd assume the fact of the matter up front. "Yes, your character knows about trolls and fire. How so?" I might say, and then either listen to their answer, or provide my own, or decide that it didn't really matter. I could put the player on the spot and demand an explanation, or simply say "No," but since I'm the sole dispenser of in-game information, after I hear the player's answer I can just reiterate that. Or, to save time, we could all just take it as read that the player's answer is what I would have said.

Would the encounter with the trolls then be trivialized in my game? Maybe, but because I play this way I don't design encounters that can be trivialized with a simple piece of knowledge.

Does this essentially let players do whatever they want, since they can know anything they want? Yes, but players who don't have to justify their ability to be capable and cool have much less of an incentive to grab every opportunity to be capable and cool and are quite content to let their characters get into dangerous situations, and even risk permanent character death. I've seen players even make situations far worse for their characters than I would ever dare to.

This isn't a way everyone is going to want to play, but anyone could play this way if they wanted, assuming a decent level of trust at the table. Did I mention that this approach builds trust like nothing else I've seen?

I would solve that troll/knowledge issue by not using standard trolls, in a campaign where experienced players are playing inexperienced characters. See JayR's post. Make it literally impossible for the players to metagame in that manner, wherever possible.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-27, 05:48 PM
I would solve that troll/knowledge issue by not using standard trolls, in a campaign where experienced players are playing inexperienced characters. See JayR's post. Make it literally impossible for the players to metagame in that manner, wherever possible. Fine sure. But why go to that trouble? If the players are metagaming like that, then they don't want to spend rounds trying to figure out a monster's weakness. If they did want to do that, then they could just roleplay doing that, even though they knew the weakness. Your approach just strikes me as forcing something on the players that they don't necessarily want.

I was thinking that it could be that what they do want, is to have a puzzle to figure out, so they want the GM to use tricky monsters. But if that's true, then why use a well-known monster in a new way? The only reason I can see to do that is to catch out or punish people who will definitely metagame. If you want to give them a puzzle, just give them a puzzle, not a "gotcha."

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-27, 06:18 PM
There's more to the game and justifying why they're doing something. The game isn't about checking everyone's actions to make sure they're satisfactory. The game is about things happening, and looking for reasons for things not to happen, or to only happen in a way that the person most impacted by them doesn't enjoy is also not really playing the game.

In an RPG, the player's job is to make a decision of what they want their character to do (the "game" part"), then think and explain how and why they do it (the "roleplaying") part. Everything else flows from that. In case of blatant metagaming, no-one needs to look for reasons for things to not happen, because the reason is already obvious: the character could not possess that information.

Example: Thief runs down a corridor, taking a left turn at a crossroads. GM tells to player A that their character saw the thief go that way. Player B, whose character was further up the corridor and did not witness this sight, announces "cool, my character follows the thief".

I can pretty easily tell how the player knows and why the player would want to do that, but without an intermediate step, there is no way for the character's actions to logically follow from those. Hence, "your character doesn't know that". There's a trivial workaround; B could say their character asks A's characters, or A could say "my character tells where the thief went". But it's not "looking for reasons for things to happen" - it's the opposite, looking for reasons why they could happen, because without doing that the action is invalid.

Of course, A might decide their character won't tell B's. Which might not be enjoyed by B, but player enjoyment is actually tangential to playing the game. Most complex games can lead to frustrating scenarios where there's only one or only bad options as an emergent feature of their rules. A GM doesn't need to bend over backward and sabotage their players for it to happen, nor does a GM need to bend over backwards to ensure it doesn't happen.


What you're saying in the paragraph above doesn't say anything about how good a justification the player has to give, just that the GM gets to decide that.

Wrong. What I said was that someone needs to decide that. As for how "good" the justification needs to be, I gave two criteria in my first post: the action needs to be legitimate in-game move, meaning it has to follow the game rules; and it needs to be a legitimate in-character move, meaning it has to follow from knowledge and motivations the character can have. So the "specific way" I want my players to play is actually to just pay attention to what's happening and what their characters could know and do.

If I describe a bunch of monsters attacking and a player guesses they are trolls, they don't need to invoke that knowledge in character at all. They could just say "I see this horrible creature approaching, grab a flaming branch from the campfire and try to fend it off". Obviously it's a smart thing to do against trolls, specifically, and as a GM I might give them this look (http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Wk7_cfUr--/19g0y5eu84sh2jpg.jpg), but as a GM there's no ground for me to challenge the player about anything, because the action doesn't require any knowledge of them being trolls, per se. It only requires for there to be a campfire around.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-27, 07:17 PM
In an RPG, the player's job is to make a decision of what they want their character to do (the "game" part"), then think and explain how and why they do it (the "roleplaying") part. Everything else flows from that. It's not a job. What you describe is just one way to handle it. And actually I handle it pretty much the same way, except that the player doesn't have to be the one to explain either how or why they do it. They often are the one to do it (assuming it needs to be done at all) but if they aren't able to someone else can help them.


In case of blatant metagaming, no-one needs to look for reasons for things to not happen, It's not always that blatant, though, is it? Aren't there times where you think they're metagaming and call them on it, but they claim they weren't and try to explain how? I see this a lot, because people are rarely that blatant, but everyone's always on the lookout for metagaming.


I can pretty easily tell how the player knows and why the player would want to do that, but without an intermediate step, there is no way for the character's actions to logically follow from those. Hence, "your character doesn't know that". There's a trivial workaround; B could say their character asks A's characters, or A could say "my character tells where the thief went". But it's not "looking for reasons for things to happen" - it's the opposite, looking for reasons why they could happen, because without doing that the action is invalid. There's an even more trivial workaround: assuming there is a way the character could know that, and just not worrying about it. Just slightly more trivial is to ask the player how they know, and accepting any answer they give.

Because why would anyone care that the player knows. The game doesn't hinge on them not going the right way, presumably, so if they happened to go the right way, why even worry about it? For that matter, what if player B, in an effort to avoid the whole rigmarole, just goes the opposite way. That's still metagaming, do you have a problem with that? If you do, what option would not prompt questions of "how do you know?" The character sitting there doing nothing, because they don't know and saying "I just guessed" is unacceptable? Or the oh-my-goodness-how-tiresome theater of "Make a Perception/Intelligence/Insight/Luck roll" so the character gets clued in? And what's the upside to the character going the wrong way anyway? Sure, it's potentially interesting, but it's also potentially boring, so why not worry about how they know things when not knowing is definitely going to be interesting?


Of course, A might decide their character won't tell B's. Which might not be enjoyed by B, but player enjoyment is actually tangential to playing the game. I felt like replying to everything else you wrote, but this is really the core of it. I find that statement nonsensical. Player enjoyment is, as I see it, all that playing the game is.


Most complex games can lead to frustrating scenarios where there's only one or only bad options as an emergent feature of their rules. A GM doesn't need to bend over backward and sabotage their players for it to happen, nor does a GM need to bend over backwards to ensure it doesn't happen. Most complex games are also one thing most roleplaying games are not: competitive. Someone deliberately holding back the only possible thing that would make a cooperative game continue to be enjoyable for another player is not really justifiable in my eyes.


Wrong. What I said was that someone needs to decide that. As for how "good" the justification needs to be, I gave two criteria in my first post: the action needs to be legitimate in-game move, meaning it has to follow the game rules; Most RPG rules state as a metarule that the GM is allowed the break the game rules, as necessary. The GM is even the one to decide whether the rules apply to a given situation. So, again, a GM can, by the rules of the game, decide that any given move is a "legitimate in-game move." So, how do you decide that? If it's a high bar, why is it so high?


and it needs to be a legitimate in-character move, meaning it has to follow from knowledge and motivations the character can have. Which still doesn't say anything, because that can be almost limitless. In the case of the chase you mention, a player can say "I guess," or "My momentum coming around the corner sent me more in that direction, so instead of slowing down I kept going, hoping for the best." Or someone can establish something about the game world or the character that explains retroactively how the character can have that knowledge. "Ah, yes," says the GM, "you can hear running footsteps that way, so of course you follow those."


So the "specific way" I want my players to play is actually to just pay attention to what's happening and what their characters could know and do. Which means you have to do the same thing, so you can police their decisions in case they slip up. It's a good think that your enjoyment is only tangential to playing the game, because that sounds really boring.


If I describe a bunch of monsters attacking and a player guesses they are trolls, they don't need to invoke that knowledge in character at all. They could just say "I see this horrible creature approaching, grab a flaming branch from the campfire and try to fend it off". Obviously it's a smart thing to do against trolls, specifically, and as a GM I might give them this look (http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Wk7_cfUr--/19g0y5eu84sh2jpg.jpg), but as a GM there's no ground for me to challenge the player about anything, because the action doesn't require any knowledge of them being trolls, per se. It only requires for there to be a campfire around. And this is really all I'm talking about. But some would say you're justified in saying "Hey, you've never attacked using a branch before, so what made you think to do it now?" Is that what you mean by the GM "bending over backwards" to make a scenario frustrating? If they didn't think to use fire, would you offer any clue that they should, or have anything occur that would be likely to cause them to resort to a torch? Or would that be bending over backwards to make it not frustrating.

I'll let myself get frustrated, because I get to control that. I'll play single player games on the highest setting until I just can't take it, because I get to decide when that is. But I won't stand by and let someone (apart from, say, a young child I'm trying to teach) be frustrated in a game they're spending their free time trying to enjoy. But our players are not (typically) young children, and they aren't there to be taught, but to have a fun time. If they want to be frustrated, then fine, that can be arranged, but that desire of theirs has to be clear or I'm putting a stop to whatever is frustrating about it. Because if they don't enjoy being frustrated, then all I'm doing is giving them more incentive to metagame, which includes them deciding just to leave the game so they can do something that is actually enjoyable for them.

Rowan Wolf
2015-03-27, 07:25 PM
And so begins a slippery slope that destroys trust between player and DM.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-27, 07:36 PM
And so begins a slippery slope that destroys trust between player and DM. If you're referring to me, then yeah, that's right, because I don't want them to trust that I'm an unfeeling computer who doesn't care if they've spent hours being frustrated. I want them to trust that when they have hours to spend playing a game with me that they'll have fun playing that game. If their idea of having fun involves the risk of spending hours being frustrated then they don't need me for that. Any number of videogames can supply that experience, and they can simply turn them off when they've had enough.

Rowan Wolf
2015-03-27, 07:43 PM
You are really coming across very hostile and I can only guess you belong to the DM vs the Players school of thought and if that how you and your group likes it then more power to you, but others will have different view and ways of doing things. So calm yourself down.

Pex
2015-03-27, 07:49 PM
The players don't know anything about the world even more than you suspect. In that game, all the players grew up in an isolated village deep in a haunted forest. They don't know world history, monster stats, or anything outside the village. Here's a further description:

You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.

The world is basically early medieval. You all speak a single language for which you (reasonably) have no name. If you learn another language, you’ll know more about what that means.

It’s a really small village. There are fewer than 100 people living there, which is smaller than it used to be. There are chickens, goats, sheep, a couple of oxen, but no horses or cows.

The village has a single road going out of town to the north and south, and you’ve never been on it. The only travel on it occurs when a few wagons go off to take food to market – and even that hasn’t happened in the last few seasons. Very rarely, a traveler may come through, and spend the night with the priest. You have all greedily listened to any stories these travelers tell. Your parents say this isn’t good for you – what’s here in the village is good enough for you, and all travelers are always liars, anyway.

The village is surrounded by a haunted forest nearby. You have occasionally gone a few hundred feet into it on a dare, but no further, and never at night. I will modify this (slightly) for any character who wishes to start as a Druid or Ranger. Nobody gets to know the modification unless they choose one of those classes.

The old folks in the village sometimes talk about how much better it was long ago. There was real travel, and real trade. Nobody knows what happened since.

You have heard many mutually conflicting tales of all kinds of marvelous heroes. You may assume that you have heard of any story of any hero you like – Gilgamesh, Oddysseus, Sigurd, Taliesin, Charlemagne, Lancelot, Robin Hood, Aragorn, Prester John, Baba Yaga, Prince Ōkuninushi, Br’er Rabbit, anyone. The old stories seem to imply that there have been several Ages of Heroes. Your parents don’t think these tales are good for you. Takes your mind off farming.

I will answer any reasonable questions about the village and its denizens. You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)

Yes, exploring the world is a major part of the game as planned, and the players are enjoying it. They've had fun learning about goblins that are not D&D goblins, and have learned how to handle zombies when it's hard to pull a sword out of their dead flesh. The forest is no longer haunted, they have met the Fair Folk, and they are the heroes of several towns and villages.

But I have a question for you. What does this have to do with some assumed "DM throne of power"? Isn't that kind of an insulting term to apply to a campaign in which you have zero experience and almost no knowledge?

For one particular campaign that's all fine and dandy. However, since the idea was presented as an all encompassing defense mechanic against metagaming it's no longer about this one particular campaign instance but rather players and their character should never know anything anytime any game, the "DM throne of power".


Why is is the responsibility of the player? That implies that it's not in anyone else's interest to maintain plausible deniability or translate those decisions, which in turn implies that those decisions are only ever inconvenient for others at the table. It also implies that there's some arbitrary bar that the player has to meet in order to get the GM's approval, and a bar like that can easily be moved out of the player's reach if the GM wants to do so.

Many is the time that I've been the GM and a player has wanted to do something that I thought was cool, but that the player couldn't justify. It used to be that I would say, yeah, sorry, your character wouldn't do that. These days, I try to help them come up with a reason. And why wouldn't I? I like what they're trying to do, and it doesn't matter to me where they get the idea for justifying it. And my bar is generally quite low: if the player thinks its a good justification, then my default is to agree. Why wouldn't it be?

The key example of this is the introduction of a new character into a group, especially if it has some trait that's offensive to another character. The player doesn't want to attack the other player's new character, but the character plausibly might. The player may feel they have no choice but to attack. That's when I think it's a good thing for another person at the table to offer some reason why the character wouldn't attack, either drawing from an existing fact about the game, or establishing some fact that is plausible and non-contradictory and would be known to the character.

I know some people would say, yeah, attacking him is logical, so let's see what happens, but that's what they enjoy: just seeing how the simulation plays out. Not everyone enjoys that, and I think it's reasonable that people get to spend their free time doing a thing they enjoy in a way they enjoy doing it. Of course, if the people involved can't agree on a way to enjoy it, then they'll probably have to part ways.

One of my favorite incidences of this was in an old campaign, having reached high level, where my character had become a Duke of the realm. He was also the "Pope" of the church for a new god of Justice. (Long story.) The party's rogue had become the Godfather. I knew, in and out of character, he was. My faith was telling me to arrest him. The law was telling me to arrest him. The rogue was my best buddy, and I really could trust him implicitly in and out of character. We're still a party having adventures. I can't arrest him. I found a solution, calling it pragmatism. I knew, no matter what the law was, no matter how strong my faith, there was always going to be someone who's the Godfather. It's just the Way of Things. Out of all the possible candidates to be the Godfather, the one I would most want in that position is my rogue buddy. There'll still be minor crimes and such for the constabulary to take care of, but the Godfather was loyal to me and I to him. He did not condone murder. No slavery. No blackmail. Defend the country! None of the truly Evil stuff one usually associates with a thieves' guild in typical campaigns. He even had me, while disguised, use Detect Evil on his entire guild in our home city to root out the true Evil ones. It's a lot like how Roy justified adventuring with Belkar when he was dead only my Belkar is really a Good Guy, just not Lawful. The solution was deity/DM approved.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-27, 08:39 PM
It's not a job.

Yes it is. All games have some job for the player, and if the player fails to do that, he's not engaging the game and might as well leave.


What you describe is just one way to handle it.

Do kindly explain what way there is to play RPGs that cannot be summarized in the way I wrote.


Which means you have to do the same thing, so you can police their decisions in case they slip up. It's a good think that your enjoyment is only tangential to playing the game, because that sounds really boring.

Do kindly explain how you can GM any game without paying attention to what's going on and what the characters know and can do.


Player enjoyment is, as I see it, all that playing the game is.

This is a bizarre outlook. Player enjoyment is the desired end result of playing games, but it does not describe games as a process, and in no case is the desired result guaranteed. If player enjoyment would be all there is to a game, then a bunch of addicts shooting heroin while staring at the rulebooks would count as playing, even if no actual game decisions were made, as long as they're enjoying themselves.

That's not how it works. Playing a game is when you take the rules and put them to application. In case of RPGs, it's the part typically involving srcibbling down notes and rolling some dice, consulting a few books and making stuff up. You can do all of that, you can even do all of that well, without enjoying yourself for a single second.


Most RPG rules state as a metarule that the GM is allowed the break the game rules, as necessary.

"As necessary" in said metarule doesn't mean "whenever it would benefit a PC". It means "when rules are in obvious contradiction, are incomplete, or don't work for the intended purpose".

This loops back to how you claimed it's "trivial" to just assume B's character saw the thief, or to accept whatever excuse the player comes up with. Here's the deal: most RPGs have rules for movement, positioning and at least rudimentary rules for line of sight. In all of these cases, the rules of the game are working exactly as intended, and the player is using information from outside the actual game (pretty much the basic definition of metagaming). If the GM doesn't enforce the rules for things like this, it undermines having them in the first place. Assuming things in player's favor or accepting any explanation (in contrast to just those explanations which make sense within the game rules) represents a pointless and retroactive cancellation of functional rules and rulings. When I pick a gamebook from a shelf, the intent tends to be to play that game, not Calvinball.


Aren't there times where you think they're metagaming and call them on it, but they claim they weren't and try to explain how?

After reading what I wrote, why would you even think I'd bother to call players on metagaming if I can't point to an obvious logical contradiction?

Jay R
2015-03-27, 09:29 PM
For one particular campaign that's all fine and dandy. However, since the idea was presented as an all encompassing defense mechanic against metagaming it's no longer about this one particular campaign instance but rather players and their character should never know anything anytime any game, the "DM throne of power".

That's simply untrue. The exact words I presented it with were "In my current game, my defense against metagaming was described...". That is clearly and unambiguously for one particular campaign. You are pretending, in direct contradiction of the evidence, that it was "was presented as an all encompassing defense mechanic against metagaming", just to echo Flickerdart's insulting phrase "DM throne of power".

Beta Centauri
2015-03-30, 12:02 PM
You are really coming across very hostile and I can only guess you belong to the DM vs the Players school of thought I can't imagine where you're getting this. It's nothing of the sort. I am almost entirely on the players' side.


Yes it is. All games have some job for the player, and if the player fails to do that, he's not engaging the game and might as well leave. The point is that it's not entirely the player's "job." (And also that "job" makes it sound like work, as does your deemphasis of enjoyment.)


Do kindly explain what way there is to play RPGs that cannot be summarized in the way I wrote. I will, despite patronizing tone: you say "the player's job is to... then think and explain how and why they do it (the "roleplaying") part." I'm saying that if they can't, won't or don't do that, someone else can do it. If my player wants to do something but can't think of a good reason why their character would do it, I will do my best to help them. They are still playing the game, because they're having their character do something.


Do kindly explain how you can GM any game without paying attention to what's going on and what the characters know and can do. I will, despite your patronizing tone: trust. I trust my players not to cheat, or gain unfair advantage. I pay attention to what's going on, obviously, but I haven't paid attention for years to what the characters know and can do. If the players tell me they know something or can do something, they they do and they can. Double checking them is a waste of my time, and theirs. They're almost always correct (since they built the character, and know them better than I do) and even if they're not, that's almost certainly not because they're deliberately misapplying the rules. That's how they assumed the rules worked, and if I go to the effort to correct them I'm up against that belief, which they probably hold very strongly. I'm also up against the natural defensiveness people adopt when they feel they're being told that they're wrong, a reaction you're clearly familiar with. Even if the rules are entirely on my side, the best I can hope for is a player who is grumpy and embarrassed.


This is a bizarre outlook. Player enjoyment is the desired end result of playing games, but it does not describe games as a process, and in no case is the desired result guaranteed. True, it doesn't describe most games as a process, but it can, and I prefer it when it does. If a game regularly causes me displeasure during the course of it, I generally stop playing it.


If player enjoyment would be all there is to a game, then a bunch of addicts shooting heroin while staring at the rulebooks would count as playing, even if no actual game decisions were made, as long as they're enjoying themselves. When I say that player enjoyment is all there is to a game, I'm saying that if people are playing a game (p) then they should enjoy themselves the entire time (q). p -> q. If people are not enjoying themselves the entire time (~q), then I'd say that they're not really "playing a game" (~p). ~q -> ~p. Those two statements are logically equivalent. If someone is playing a game, then they're having fun. If someone is not having fun, then I hope they're not playing a game.

You seem to be claiming that I'm saying if someone is enjoying themselves (q), then they must be playing a game (p). p -> q. That statement is not logically equivalent, as there are obviously many examples of enjoyable situations that are not game. Yes, of course people don't always have fun when they're playing, but that's not something we should accept and at some point a person won't accept it and will either leave that game, or play it a different way.

This sets aside professional players who are, after all, doing a job. Their enjoyment really is incidental. But most roleplayers aren't doing what they do as a job.


That's not how it works. Playing a game is when you take the rules and put them to application. And enjoy the result. If you take the rules and put them into application, you're still technically "playing the game," but to no useful end other than applying the rules.


In case of RPGs, it's the part typically involving srcibbling down notes and rolling some dice, consulting a few books and making stuff up. You can do all of that, you can even do all of that well, without enjoying yourself for a single second. Yes, that's right. Almost all of that can be done by a computer, and the computer doesn't enjoy itself. It just operates. But we don't expect computers to enjoy themselves. It's reasonable to expect that a player playing a game only does so because they're enjoying themselves.

As for the "making stuff up," making stuff up but not enjoying it is about the saddest thing I can think of. It sounds more like a pathological condition than play.


"As necessary" in said metarule doesn't mean "whenever it would benefit a PC". It means "when rules are in obvious contradiction, are incomplete, or don't work for the intended purpose". Right, the intended purpose being "to bring about an enjoyable experience." Others see the intended purpose as "to simulate a consistent reality" but that results in the same thing, because what those people enjoy is seeing rules simulate a consistent reality.

So, if a rule, in any way, shape or form, is not going to contribute to the enjoyment of the game, it's a GM's prerogative to ignore or alter it. That can really, then, be for any reason including "no one can remember exactly what the rule is and looking it up would be a bore."

And I'm seeing part of what is making you so uncivil: you think this is all about what would benefit a PC, and therefore about the PCs always foiling the GM's challenges. Part of the reason I don't like to use the term "PC" is because it implies that the player and the character are always the same. Everything that happens at the table should benefit the players - that's why they're spending their free time at the table - , but not everything should benefit the characters. It's nice for players when their characters benefit, and they thereby derive benefit, but characters tend to have to get into some trouble, too, which they don't enjoy, but the players still can, and often will. I, for one, enjoy it when my character stumbles into battle, even if I had been trying to keep him out. If I didn't, I wouldn't be playing a game in which battle is a possibility.


This loops back to how you claimed it's "trivial" to just assume B's character saw the thief, or to accept whatever excuse the player comes up with. Here's the deal: most RPGs have rules for movement, positioning and at least rudimentary rules for line of sight. Here's also the deal: The rules are not the laws of physics, and don't work in or even apply to every situation. Even when they do work or could apply, there's probably another way to resolve the same situation, either with a modification or enhancement to that rule, or by GM decision. For instance, a fight between NPCs in a tavern brawl could be resolved by the rules, but could also just be decided by the GM.

But in the case of the chase, this doesn't even matter. The issue there is which way the character will go, if any. If they go the right way, they need a solid logical reason, because that's a benefit to them. If they go the other way, presumably they still need a reason, but I'm betting it doesn't have to be as rigorous. You're saying that they can't base a decision on visual information about the thief or the other player. That's fine, although it ignores input to other senses as well as indirect evidence. That's fine. The character could just guess, or make a snap decision based on circumstances. There are no rules for those, so the GM has to rule. I can imagine the way you might rule, such as calling for a coin flip, or an ability check, or arguing over the phyisics of movement. I'd just let them go the way the player wanted, since the character could plausibly go that way anyway. Calling the player on it gains me nothing.


In all of these cases, the rules of the game are working exactly as intended, and the player is using information from outside the actual game (pretty much the basic definition of metagaming). I'm not arguing about the definition of metagaming, I'm discussing whether it's a problem or not. In the example we're discussing, I'm not seeing a problem. There are lots of in-game reasons player B's character could have picked to go the way the player wants them to go, so many that it's not really worth questioning how the character arrived at that course of action. If anyone needs an explanation, they could come up with one themselves, with almost trivial ease. It might not translate into the rules, but not every plausible thing does, because the rules aren't the laws of physics.


If the GM doesn't enforce the rules for things like this, it undermines having them in the first place. Indeed it does, for things like this. That's deliberate.

Fortunately, there are lots of other situations in which the rules on movement and line of sight work quite well, and so there's really very little chance of them being critically undermined if the GM decides not to apply them in every possible situation where they might remotely be applied.


Assuming things in player's favor or accepting any explanation (in contrast to just those explanations which make sense within the game rules) Not any explanation: any explanation the player gives. Players who are playing in good faith don't give explanations that they don't think are reasonable, though their explanations might not be something the rules really touch on.


represents a pointless and retroactive cancellation of functional rules and rulings. When I pick a gamebook from a shelf, the intent tends to be to play that game, not Calvinball. Reductio ad absurdum. It's not chaos to decide that, sure, the character goes the right way during the chase. There's still a chase and there are still going to be things, probably in the very near future of that scenario, where the players will cheerfully apply the rules and player knowledge won't even enter in. There's no slippery slope here.

The rules, no matter how good, won't apply to everything and sometimes the GM will have to make decisions. In those situations, it doesn't break the game to make decisions based on what is most expedient at the time (in terms of looking up rules, figuring out how they apply, discussing them, debating them, etc.) and also plausible to the people at the table. And if it doesn't even occur to someone that they're using player knowledge in a given situation, then there's already a ruling they're going to find plausible, so a lot of the effort has already been performed.

One of the main reasons people (including myself) like rules is that they are something we can all agree on, and thereby avoid arguments. People (myself once included) assume (partly due to the amount of argument they see even when there are rules) that decreasing the number or applicability of the rules will just lead to more arguments. I haven't found that to be true. What I've found that what leads to the arguments in the first place is a desire and an expectation for the game to go a particular way. Having rules doesn't make those desires go away, so the arguments remain, even with rules. A game that can be relied on to be interesting no matter how it goes removes that incentive to argue and thus one of the key reasons to rely on rules in the first place.

Another thing that leads to arguments is distrust. If a GM can't trust that their players aren't using player knowledge (and has an issue with that) then they're going to be on the lookout for that kind of misuse, and players are going to make sure they're ready to defend themselves (since they can't trust that they won't be called on a particular move). The GM simply trusting the players dispels a lot of this problem.


After reading what I wrote, why would you even think I'd bother to call players on metagaming if I can't point to an obvious logical contradiction? I don't think that. But just because something in a fictional game based on arbitrary rules that are, at best, a shoddy simulation of any kind of reality, seems obvious and logical to you doesn't mean that someone else doesn't see it another, equally obvious, equally logical way. If you would say that you've never had an argument or any other kind of pushback as result of your obvious and logical call, then I would have no basis on which to contradict you. But, based on what I've seen when people make those calls, I wouldn't have much basis to believe you either.

So, metagaming: it's as much of a concern as one lets it be. Want to place adherence to and application of rules above the smooth, enjoyable running of the game? Want to put the players into situations that they wouldn't choose to put themselves in? Then one's likely to have problems with metagaming that will require very serious disincentives to even begin to cope with. And hey, that seems to work for people. I'm just saying that there are other ways, and when I learned about those ways I was only too happy to stop applying disincentives on my friends and fellow players.

Jay R
2015-03-30, 03:23 PM
When I say that player enjoyment is all there is to a game, I'm saying that if people are playing a game (p) then they should enjoy themselves the entire time (q). p -> q. If people are not enjoying themselves the entire time (~q), then I'd say that they're not really "playing a game" (~p). ~q -> ~p. Those two statements are logically equivalent. If someone is playing a game, then they're having fun. If someone is not having fun, then I hope they're not playing a game.

This sounds so reasonable, but it's way too simplistic. I can have fun even when I'm required to follow the rules.

Any good story has tension and release of tension. Your application of this principle to games appears analogous to making a movie in which the characters never face a difficult time, or a seemingly impossible task, because the audience wants to see them succeed.

Besides, in many other kinds of games, players are required to follow the rules, but still enjoy it. In chess, I don't mind being told that my knight can't move diagonally. In basketball, I don't mind being told that I was out of bounds so the other team gets the ball. Why in the world would I mind a DM telling me that my proposed action is metagaming and won't be allowed?

Beta Centauri
2015-03-30, 04:29 PM
This sounds so reasonable, but it's way too simplistic. I can have fun even when I'm required to follow the rules. I'm not saying that people can't have fun while following rules, just that if they're not then there's not much point in using those rules. Boring rules provide their own incentive to break them


Any good story has tension and release of tension. Your application of this principle to games appears analogous to making a movie in which the characters never face a difficult time, or a seemingly impossible task, because the audience wants to see them succeed. I don't see how you're getting this from what I'm saying, though I'd certainly believe I'm not being clear.

I am not saying that characters should never face a difficult time. I've tried to make it clear that the characters can be put through the wringer, as long as the players are having fun. Take ALIENS: the characters are all but wiped out in various horrible ways, but at no time as an audience member am I not enjoying myself. Heck, take most adventure movies.

This isn't about bad things never happening to characters, this is about boring things never happening to players. I realize that the two seem strongly related, but plenty of players can, on some level, take enjoyment (that is, "tension," rather than "frustration") from bad things happening to their characters. But somethings that legally could happen to characters are not going to be fun for the players, just as some things could happen to characters in a movie that wouldn't be fun to watch. Why not avoid those things, and thereby obviate the incentive for people to metagame around them?


Besides, in many other kinds of games, players are required to follow the rules, but still enjoy it. In chess, I don't mind being told that my knight can't move diagonally. In basketball, I don't mind being told that I was out of bounds so the other team gets the ball. Why in the world would I mind a DM telling me that my proposed action is metagaming and won't be allowed? I don't know about you, but people do mind, and more than a few of them are reasonable, mature people, and the reason they mind is because they don't feel like what they did was metagaming, and they also feel (though they may be less conscious of this) that if they follow the strict rules in that case that the game will stagnate for them. When the choices are "go the right way," "go the wrong way," or "go neither way," and only one of those leads to an interesting outcome, the player has the incentive to make sure that only one of those comes about, no matter what.

I'm sure some will say "If they didn't want to be bored, they should have made a choices that allowed them to stay involved," or "Not everyone can be in the spotlight." The point is that people don't like to be bored and if you don't want them to metagame then don't allow them to be bored.

Those games you mention are competitive and have simple goals, even if they are internally complex. That is, there's only one clear way to win (mate the king, score more points), even if there are many ways to reach it. If you decide that you're not going to follow the rules in chess, your opponent can't form a coherent strategy and therefore can't really play the game. In baseball, the referee has two sides composed of human beings, and has to rule in fairness to them.

Roleplaying games, basically, are much different creatures. They're not competitive, they're collaborative and cooperative, even between the GM and the players - or, if you like, the GM is not the players' enemy and it's not a contest of skill between them. There's a "referee," but not between two sides of humans, rather between the humans and some words on a page. The rules instruct the "referee" to freely rule as they see fit.

It's not chess, it's more like if one person is moving white pieces in opposition to red pieces, and the red pieces are being moved by another person who is simulating an opponent. This second person doesn't care if red wins, as long as red is able to give white some trouble. If white doesn't want to follow one of the rules at one point because not doing so would be cooler, the second person doesn't have much incentive to prevent them, because the second person isn't really a player and there's no other player who is being cheated. Meanwhile, there's no king, just pieces moving around, and the second person can decide to bring on a bunch of rooks or a couple of queens to give the player a challenge. And the player sort of wants them to.

Finally, it's not about you, or me, it's about what we do to other people, and the incentives we give them. I don't mind following the rules either, but if someone isn't familiar with them, or just makes a mistake, I really, really, don't care. I don't have enough time to argue with people, and doing so doesn't make the experience more fun for them or for me. I don't even argue in competitive games anymore, because winning isn't that important to me, and maybe I can win anyway.

But that's me, and I can't tell anyone I game with that they should be that way. They don't have to be that way. If there are two sides in an argument, it only takes one of them to completely defuse that argument. Not a viable strategy in larger life maybe (though I'm finding that it's still pretty useful) but it works well at a table with people I trust and who I want to enjoy themselves.

draken50
2015-03-30, 06:52 PM
The biggest thing I don't understand is, how forcing players to not use their often hard-won knowledge is a good thing?

Basically, I don't know what saying: "Your character doesn't know about trolls and flame, so you can't do that." adds to the game. How does it make it better?

How is it that much different from saying "I want this fight to be harder, so subtract 5 from everything you roll?" or some other mechanical alteration.

I feel that as I player, I would be very frustrated to have the GM tell me that I'm not playing my character right, just to make a fight ... harder... I guess. I'm not sure what the purpose is. Especially considering, the GM can always mix things up and create custom creatures/weakness and otherwise alter the existing monsters. So these trolls are oddly colored and their blood sizzles and steams seaming to flicker on the ground as it pools. Looks like fire isn't the right solution this time.

Personally, I always allow player knowledge to be in character. It has created situations of extra stress and tension for my players saying: "We... do not want to fight that."

So please, explain to me how this improves the game. I really want to understand that viewpoint.

Pex
2015-03-30, 10:46 PM
The biggest thing I don't understand is, how forcing players to not use their often hard-won knowledge is a good thing?

Basically, I don't know what saying: "Your character doesn't know about trolls and flame, so you can't do that." adds to the game. How does it make it better?

How is it that much different from saying "I want this fight to be harder, so subtract 5 from everything you roll?" or some other mechanical alteration.

I feel that as I player, I would be very frustrated to have the GM tell me that I'm not playing my character right, just to make a fight ... harder... I guess. I'm not sure what the purpose is. Especially considering, the GM can always mix things up and create custom creatures/weakness and otherwise alter the existing monsters. So these trolls are oddly colored and their blood sizzles and steams seaming to flicker on the ground as it pools. Looks like fire isn't the right solution this time.

Personally, I always allow player knowledge to be in character. It has created situations of extra stress and tension for my players saying: "We... do not want to fight that."

So please, explain to me how this improves the game. I really want to understand that viewpoint.

Not speaking for anyone here, but some DMs have an issue with players knowing stuff. It's a power trip. This is not a new thing nor limited by edition. Players knowing stuff takes away some of their authority because there's something they're not controlling. It's cynical but often true.

For a less cynical view some DMs want to present a sense of wonder and mystery. They're not out to kill the party with a monster of unknown abilities; they just want to provide for a thrill in the discovery. 3E and Pathfinder having so many monster manuals is one way to do this by providing new monsters players haven't faced before. Some DMs don't want to bother, for whatever reason, to purchase more books. Since they have a more limited monster choice, switching around abilities is their solution.

draken50
2015-03-31, 12:10 AM
For a less cynical view some DMs want to present a sense of wonder and mystery. They're not out to kill the party with a monster of unknown abilities; they just want to provide for a thrill in the discovery.

I am confused on how a player is going to feel a thrill, or a sense of wonder and mystery... encountering something they already know about. I don't get how being told "Your character doesn't know that" makes a player go, "Ooo this is mysterious and I can't wait to discover it."

Are there any Pro: "Player knowledge is not character knowledge in relation to monster weaknesses/behavior" types who can explain their viewpoint?

Is it just to make knowledge checks more valuable?

I'm asking this because while I have my reasons for using a different approach I really want to know what the thoughts are from the other side. Right now, this kind of thing for me, would probably cause me to turn down playing in a campaign, so I'm willing to try to see the other side. I would expect an explanation though.

goto124
2015-03-31, 01:37 AM
Or maybe a DM wants a certain type of monster who does X and Y and doesn't want to go through the hassle of flipping through 10+ books for a suitable monster? It sounds like lazy DM, but DMing is tedious enough, having to come up details and balancing so many things.

Could say it's like having houserules, except every monster has the potential to be different and it's not worth the effort to go through every single difference when the PCs will just kill most of them anyway.

themaque
2015-03-31, 01:45 AM
So please, explain to me how this improves the game. I really want to understand that viewpoint.

Because for some people, the role playing of the character doesn't stop when you start to roll initiative. You still play and run a character from that characters point of view even in combat.

There is no way Dug my ditch digger would possibly know the combat abilities of a cave troll, even though I The Maque would. In combat I do what He would do to the best of his abilities but only his abilities, not my own encyclopedic knowledge of the monster manual.

Saturday however I am playing Professor Augustus Brimble MD DDT, Research Professor and member of the 12. He is WELL versed in Mystic biology and would be able to advice his compatriots.

All depends on how you want to play the game. Nothing WRONG with either way so long as you agree to it ahead of time.

draken50
2015-03-31, 11:48 AM
Because for some people, the role playing of the character doesn't stop when you start to roll initiative. You still play and run a character from that characters point of view even in combat.

Okay, that's a somewhat harshly phrased viewpoint with it, but I believe the basic answer you are giving is: "Because you consider it to be part of roleplaying."

This does raise a few questions for me though.

1) Who has control over the "roleplaying" of a character is performed in the games you are playing. The player? the GM? someone else?

2) Do you require a mechanical methodology, such as a knowledge skill or other skill/ability to justify all aspects of roleplaying?

3) Assuming that the player is the primary controller of roleplaying, and you do not require a mechanic for every aspect of roleplaying. Perhaps your character has a large beard ect. How does a player allowing their character to know information, not roleplaying?

As an example. I work on computers, I have never studied animals or biology or anything of the like, yet I could easily recognize a zebra, a pigeon, a dog, a lion, a bear, and even in some cases provide information related to their individual subspecies. As I consider all of the knowledge I have to be somewhat "common." Were I an RPG character I wouldn't expect that I would have "Knowledge: Nature" or "Creature Analysis" or any other specific skill. Computers... if was an option sure.

So... How is it, that a character in the game "can't possibly know" about beasts and such that pose terrible danger in their actual lives, yet I could go. "Holy crap! a Zebra! I thought those were indigenous to Africa! What is one doing here?"

Or would that seem more like something the player should decide? Because if the GM can tell you how you should play your character, why can't he force your character to grow a beard, or change sexual orientation, or be too scared to draw your sword, or really just prevent you from taking any action... ummm... ever?


Or maybe a DM wants a certain type of monster who does X and Y and doesn't want to go through the hassle of flipping through 10+ books for a suitable monster? It sounds like lazy DM, but DMing is tedious enough, having to come up details and balancing so many things.

The thing is, and what my question question is, why do the players have to pretend they don't know things? A player knowing trolls have weakness to fire or acid doesn't mean you can't use trolls. It's that some GMs then want to enforce a requirement of "Your character doesn't know that" In addition to using them. I'd never judge a GM for not making new creatures all the time.. that's fine. I just don't understand what that kind of ruling adds to the game.

Flickerdart
2015-03-31, 12:13 PM
So... How is it, that a character in the game "can't possibly know" about beasts and such that pose terrible danger in their actual lives, yet I could go. "Holy crap! a Zebra! I thought those were indigenous to Africa! What is one doing here?"
In D&D 3.5 specifically, this is what the common knowledge (DC 10, can be used untrained) skill check is for. Because we live in a world where knowledge is easy to obtain, a ton of things fall under the common knowledge threshold. In a world where a typical person wouldn't ever go more than a few miles outside of their village, what is common knowledge becomes a lot more strictly defined.

However, I definitely agree that the DM squarely placing the burden on his players for not knowing things is making a mistake. Take trolls, for example. It's common knowledge to us that fire and acid bypasses their regen. If you want it to be mysterious, just describe the troll differently, and don't call him a troll. Or make his regeneration against something else - bludgeoning weapons, for instance, if you want to avoid PCs going "well it's obviously some kind of elemental damage" and then blowing it up with energy subbed fireballs until it dies. Hell, just check the MMs for some other regenerating monster.

You don't need to do anything but the absolute minimum amount of work in order to turn "ugh the DM is being a stick in the mud again" into the thrill of genuine discovery

themaque
2015-03-31, 01:49 PM
Okay, that's a somewhat harshly phrased viewpoint with it, but I believe the basic answer you are giving is: "Because you consider it to be part of roleplaying."

First off, SORRY. didn't mean it to be harsh. Let's blame the lateness of the hour and a poor sense of humor.



1) Who has control over the "roleplaying" of a character is performed in the games you are playing. The player? the GM? someone else?

Player, some GM input, group consent. The sole burden/responsibility lies in the player. But this is just one style of play.



2) Do you require a mechanical methodology, such as a knowledge skill or other skill/ability to justify all aspects of roleplaying?

Tricky question i practice. But the Idea that your character background and the mechanical stats SHOULD have at least a passing familiarity with one another yes. Much easier to do in games such as 5e Vs Pathfinder, but if you're in a RP heavy group like I'm describing, Traits and bonus skill points to reflect those backgrounds aren't unheard of.

It was a frustration to me in 3.5 if I wanted to be from a fishing village, then showing ranks in Knowledge Geography, Knowledge Nature, and Profession: Sailor, would best show who I was and where I was from. Unfortunately RAW my fighter get's 2 skill points + int mod. 5e and rules light systems make this easier than rules intensive ones.



3) Assuming that the player is the primary controller of roleplaying, and you do not require a mechanic for every aspect of roleplaying. Perhaps your character has a large beard ect. How does a player allowing their character to know information, not roleplaying?

As an example. I work on computers, I have never studied animals or biology or anything of the like, yet I could easily recognize a zebra, a pigeon, a dog, a lion, a bear, and even in some cases provide information related to their individual subspecies. As I consider all of the knowledge I have to be somewhat "common." Were I an RPG character I wouldn't expect that I would have "Knowledge: Nature" or "Creature Analysis" or any other specific skill. Computers... if was an option sure.

So... How is it, that a character in the game "can't possibly know" about beasts and such that pose terrible danger in their actual lives, yet I could go. "Holy crap! a Zebra! I thought those were indigenous to Africa! What is one doing here?"

Or would that seem more like something the player should decide? Because if the GM can tell you how you should play your character, why can't he force your character to grow a beard, or change sexual orientation, or be too scared to draw your sword, or really just prevent you from taking any action... ummm... ever?

Well games like 3.5 have clear rules on knowledge checks, and a lot of the stuff you mentioned would be "Common knowledge". Easy DC and doesn't require any actual ranks in the skill. Yeah everyone can know WHAT a Zebra is, but you need some ranks in biology to know why it's not just a stripey horse.

Especially if someone is making a "monster hunter" character. Part of her schtick is that she's studied and knows monsters. She has the skills and background to back up his knowledge. I feel like I take away from that If I have Dug the Ditch digger just know everything myself because The Maque has been playing this game for 20 years and Chrissi is brand new, and doesn't know things her character would.

It's a balance to be sure, and it requires talking to GM and players.



The thing is, and what my question question is, why do the players have to pretend they don't know things? A player knowing trolls have weakness to fire or acid doesn't mean you can't use trolls. It's that some GMs then want to enforce a requirement of "Your character doesn't know that" In addition to using them. I'd never judge a GM for not making new creatures all the time.. that's fine. I just don't understand what that kind of ruling adds to the game.

Because I find it fun? It may not be for everyone. It's just one more layer of acting and role playing I find enjoyable. I've also been at tables where they hate all that "inventory role playing buying cooking ingredients and day to day BS. We do that in real life, in the game we just wanna kill monsters. Things I CAN'T do in real life."

In your Troll example, Yeah if Trolls are prevalent in that area, people would know about them. But if this is a fantasy realm where long distant communication can get fuzzy, they may have a fair amount of misinformation or have some of it missing! I could easily see "Troll" and "Fire Bad" being common knowledge but ACID being something that isn't as well known. If Dug the ditch digger is from a place that doesn't HAVE trolls, It could make for some interesting storytelling to have him reacting to the fact that troll KEEPS COMING BACK! GAH! It provides for some interesting creative scenarios rather than just going "Troll, light a torch, careful they have a 10 foot reach and rend".

draken50
2015-03-31, 02:02 PM
If Dug the ditch digger is from a place that doesn't HAVE trolls, It could make for some interesting storytelling to have him reacting to the fact that troll KEEPS COMING BACK! GAH! It provides for some interesting creative scenarios rather than just going "Troll, light a torch, careful they have a 10 foot reach and rend".

I actually agree with that. The part I end up having difficulty with is not, a player taking a non-optimal action. I'm totally cool with that, and really like to see it in my games as a GM. As you mention and can be great from a story telling perspective, and allow for fantastic moments that may not occur otherwise.

The line I tend to draw though, is when the GM adjudicates that an action is not allowable for a character due to that character not having an applicable knowledge skill. Because as much as we like to phrase things based on the character. The GM is saying. "No player, you are not playing right. Cease the manner in which you are playing." And as a both a player and a GM I consider the agency of the players to be paramount.

Also I recall the instance of Old man Henderson having a huge backstory, just so the player could justify any action as reasonable based on it.

Edit: I will acknowledge that my players tend to take non-optimal actions for the sake of story without prompting from me.

Keltest
2015-03-31, 02:42 PM
I actually agree with that. The part I end up having difficulty with is not, a player taking a non-optimal action. I'm totally cool with that, and really like to see it in my games as a GM. As you mention and can be great from a story telling perspective, and allow for fantastic moments that may not occur otherwise.

The line I tend to draw though, is when the GM adjudicates that an action is not allowable for a character due to that character not having an applicable knowledge skill. Because as much as we like to phrase things based on the character. The GM is saying. "No player, you are not playing right. Cease the manner in which you are playing." And as a both a player and a GM I consider the agency of the players to be paramount.

Also I recall the instance of Old man Henderson having a huge backstory, just so the player could justify any action as reasonable based on it.

Edit: I will acknowledge that my players tend to take non-optimal actions for the sake of story without prompting from me.

The rules and limitations are there for a reason. Personally, I see little difference between "I know these are trolls, and therefore weak to fire because metagame" and "I know where the treasure is because I snuck a peak at the map behind the DM screen." I wont put up a fuss if an unarmed character grabs a torch to use as a weapon (unless theyre a monk), but if the Paladin throws away his sword in favor of a torch, im going to call them out on it, plain and simple.

Im not especially strict when it comes to enforcing roleplaying, but we set about defining the limitations in advance, and everybody knows they at least exist, even if they don't know the exact limits, so I expect some understanding going in that youre going to play by those limits.

Flickerdart
2015-03-31, 03:02 PM
Attacking a troll with a torch isn't even a good idea, since the damage you deal is pitiful and the penalties you take are severe. Best to beat it down normal style and then CdG with fire.

draken50
2015-03-31, 04:58 PM
The rules and limitations are there for a reason.

What rules/limitations?
I don't recall anywhere in the books there being a, your character doesn't know things about creatures that you know. I may be wrong there.

And what reason? What does it add to the game?

I see one person on here responding that they believe it adds to roleplaying. That is a an argument that has merit. There is a reason. People can debate whether it's worth the cost or not, and obviously many don't like, so I want reasons.


Personally, I see little difference between "I know these are trolls, and therefore weak to fire because metagame" and "I know where the treasure is because I snuck a peak at the map behind the DM screen.".

Also, is this an exaggeration for effect, or do you truly see no difference between a player acting on honestly gotten info i.e. by playing, and performing what most would consider a dishonest act, peaking through the GMs notes? If so, where do you see a difference. Is a person reading a math book before a math test as guilty of cheating as someone who reads the teachers copy and memorizes questions and answers?

Also do they know because "Metagame" or do they know due to prior experience. Is prior experience "metagame"?

Keltest
2015-03-31, 05:00 PM
What rules/limitations?
I don't recall anywhere in the books there being a, your character doesn't know things about creatures that you know. I may be wrong there.

And what reason? What does it add to the game?

I see one person on here responding that they believe it adds to roleplaying. That is a an argument that has merit. There is a reason. People can debate whether it's worth the cost or not, and obviously many don't like, so I want reasons.



Also, is this an exaggeration for effect, or do you truly see no difference between a player acting on honestly gotten info i.e. by playing, and performing what most would consider a dishonest act, peaking through the GMs notes? If so, where do you see a difference. Is a person reading a math book before a math test as guilty of cheating as someone who reads the teachers copy and memorizes questions and answers?

Also do they know because "Metagame" or do they know due to prior experience. Is prior experience "metagame"?

Somebody who has never encountered trolls in game but reads the Monster Manuals when theyre bored is metagaming if they abandon their weapon for a torch when they get ambushed by trolls they don't recognize.

draken50
2015-03-31, 05:07 PM
Somebody who has never encountered trolls in game but reads the Monster Manuals when theyre bored is metagaming if they abandon their weapon for a torch when they get ambushed by trolls they don't recognize.

Okay, I'm going to try to break this down, please correct me if I get something wrong.

So the player in this example needed to both

A) Acquire the knowledge through GM type resources. (Reading a module, monster manual ect.)

and

B)Perform and Act in the game solely based on the information acquired.

I can understand the frustration one may experience with that and can understand why that would seem very unfair.

So a couple questions

1)What if said player encountered trolls previously in another campaign, and got the knowledge that way. Does it change your viewpoint on their action?

or

2)What if the player knew about troll weaknesses due to reading the MM to plan a campaign. Does that change your viewpoint?

and 3) for any of the above situations including that which you brought up, is the GM stating "you can't do that" the correct course of action?

Keltest
2015-03-31, 05:13 PM
1)What if said player encountered trolls previously in another campaign, and got the knowledge that way. Does it change your viewpoint on their action?

Not really. The exact source doesn't matter so much, theyre acting on information they had no way to obtain in game (and given the way I DM, more than likely were explicitly established not to know. But I wont assume that everyone does that).


2)What if the player knew about troll weaknesses due to reading the MM to plan a campaign. Does that change your viewpoint? Same deal. Their character didn't find out about it, so theyre just abandoning all logic and beating them with a far-inferior torch for fun, apparently.


and 3) for any of the above situations including that which you brought up, is the GM stating "you can't do that" the correct course of action?

Not literally, but I would heavily pressure them to justify their actions. Barring some character quirk where they have to kill EVERYTHING with fire (which would be amusing, to say the least), I would probably end up saying something to the effect of "Your character doesn't know these are trolls. Please keep that in mind when planning your actions." And if they continue to do it, I will glower at them to let them know an imminent contrivance that will humiliate and inconvenience them without killing them is soon to be at hand.

draken50
2015-03-31, 05:21 PM
I appreciate your input. It does sound as though you prefer new players who haven't read any of the non-player books for your games, or you change monsters ect. so that they are custom to your setting/game.

If you don't mind, I have some other questions.

How do you determine what knowledge the characters have?

I have my silly zebra example, but by what metric do you resolve that?

What process do you use basically, and what is the assumed default? Like, probably a bad example.. but let's say a mummy is weak to fire, and a player pulls out oil and a torch. Is there a default assumption of metagaming or would the default logic be: "It's covered in old wraps of a cloth, likely dry possibly super flammable"?

Keltest
2015-03-31, 05:26 PM
I appreciate your input. It does sound as though you prefer new players who haven't read any of the non-player books for your games, or you change monsters ect. so that they are custom to your setting/game.

If you don't mind, I have some other questions.

How do you determine what knowledge the characters have?

I have my silly zebra example, but by what metric do you resolve that?

What process do you use basically, and what is the assumed default? Like, probably a bad example.. but let's say a mummy is weak to fire, and a player pulls out oil and a torch. Is there a default assumption of metagaming or would the default logic be: "It's covered in old wraps of a cloth, likely dry possibly super flammable"?

They don't have to be new necessarily, they just have to recognize what information is available to their character is not the same as what they might know.

As for actual knowledge, we use a skill system. Any and every character has a base 5% chance to have picked up anything across their life. They may recognize a gelatinous cube from their childhood stories, or know a complex ritual for Armageddon because they read about it on the back of a cereal box. The source in that case doesn't really matter. They can spend some skill points on learning about a specific topic, in which case I (or whoever is DMing) will just rattle off a list of facts they know and remember based on the level of study they invested in. A basic trainee in undead studies for example might recognize ghouls from ghasts, while a master sage on undead will be able to Sherlock Holmes the location of a Vampire's coffin using their observations about the vampire and knowledge of the local terrain (getting more specific as the knowledge of the latter increases).

draken50
2015-03-31, 05:31 PM
Interesting.

Do the skill points spent correlate to a specific knowledge? How does that work? What are the ways that one could increase that base 5%? Are there instances where they have no chance?

Keltest
2015-03-31, 05:38 PM
Interesting.

Do the skill points spent correlate to a specific knowledge? How does that work? What are the ways that one could increase that base 5%? Are there instances where they have no chance?

Yes, you have to pick a specific subject, but if youre willing to spend the skills, you can theoretically learn everything. We use a heavy houserules system that's a bit complicated to go into right now, but know that there are tables involved showing the costs for each class for different skills.

Once you pick a subject (say, undead) the player can just ask the DM 'What do I know about undead that's relevant here" or some variation thereof, and the DM will then rattle off facts they think pertinent. The player can continue to probe for information if they want, and its up to the DM if theyre likely to know something at any given level of training.

I want to say "no, there is always a chance", but realistically im fairly certain that for some very specific scenarios where there isn't any possible way for the information to have gotten out (for example, something totally original and new just appeared for the first time) I have flat out said "You have no clue what that is." 99% of the time though, they have at least a chance of knowing something. As for increasing that chance, I usually just base it on context. An elf is more than likely going to be at least cursorily familiar with elven legends, for example, while a human from one city might have no clue about legends from another city, and thus would be at base.

Sometimes ill also just ignore the dice and say "yes, heres what you know" because I am a benevolent DM who happens to want the party to know things sometimes.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-31, 06:47 PM
The point is that it's not entirely the player's "job." (And also that "job" makes it sound like work, as does your deemphasis of enjoyment.)

You say "the player's job is to... then think and explain how and why they do it (the "roleplaying") part." I'm saying that if they can't, won't or don't do that, someone else can do it. If my player wants to do something but can't think of a good reason why their character would do it, I will do my best to help them. They are still playing the game, because they're having their character do something.

But I didn't say entirely - I said ultimately. I acknowledged posts ago that others can help, but even when they do, it's still that player's job to decide which of the helpful ideas apply. If they can't do it, they can't do the roleplaying part, which undermines the point of that player participating in RPGs. If they won't do it, they're playing the wrong sort of game.

If they don't do it, it's my job as a GM to remind them to do it by asking them precisely the sort of questions you've been critizing. That's the crux of it, really: what is asking the player to think for themselves, if not helping?


I trust my players not to cheat, or gain unfair advantage. I pay attention to what's going on, obviously, but I haven't paid attention for years to what the characters know and can do.

I know what you're getting at, but I seriously question whether you're being honest with yourself with that underlined part. So in years of time, you have not, in your role as the opposing player, had your NPCs use their knowledge of the PCs abilities to set an ambush, to play a con or to otherwise trick them? Convincing play of NPCs requires keeping track of what the PCs know and can do, because that's the information they'd be using to make decisions.

Now, as to the "cheating" or "unfair advantage" part - all metagame information that is used to go against the rules of the game is cheating. You're completely missing why I'm focusing on blatant contradictions. When someone makes a plunder like that, I can immediately tell they're trying to get an advantage, or at the very least being thoughtless. Why would I trust my players to not make a mistake I've already evidenced them making?

I don't need to specifically "police" the game to do this - that's just rhetoric on your part. As a GM, I'm already monitoring all the events and rules of the game. Spotting contradictions like the ones described is a natural results of something I'm already doing.

This is also why your point about double checking misses by a mile. It's just checking. The players don't have to ask "is doing X okay?", they can just say "I do X" and I will know whether it's okay. Again: I, as the GM, only need to speak up or call them on anything when their playing is blatantly incomplete or wrong. Decisions can be made in a single pass as long as both parties are paying attention.


They're almost always correct (since they built the character, and know them better than I do) and even if they're not, that's almost certainly not because they're deliberately misapplying the rules.

None of this applies to my usual playgroups, and the reason is obvious: majority of my players are either new to the hobby or children. Rather unsurprisingly, the guy with more play experience than all other people at table combined will be better at memorizing all sorts of fiddly details. I routinely have to remind people of their own character's names even when they, themselves, wrote those down. Also, the latter group will misapply rules to screw over each other (or me), because children are cute like that.


That's how they assumed the rules worked, and if I go to the effort to correct them I'm up against that belief, which they probably hold very strongly.

It's funny you brought up Rule 0 before me, but now you're not willing to actually follow it.

When the referee has the final word, the players are expected to stop arguing there. How strongly they hold their beliefs is entirely immaterial, because whether or not they agree the ruling will hold till the referee overturns it. This takes about as much play time as it takes for the referee to speak their sentence, and it will only lead to grumpiness and embarrasment if the player lets it.


You seem to be claiming that I'm saying if someone is enjoying themselves (q), then they must be playing a game (p).

Said claim is reductio ad absurdium of your arguments. If it's not the player's job to actually make decisions regarding the game and the GM is expected to amend the rules towards player enjoyment, then if players enjoy shooting heroin and staring in stupor, that's what the game will be. Except said game will not have any game decisions nor will it have roleplaying in it.

The point is that you can't reduce RPGs to "enjoyment", regardless of how enjoyable they are or reasonably should be. Being enjoyable is not what defines RPGs.


As for the "making stuff up," making stuff up but not enjoying it is about the saddest thing I can think of. It sounds more like a pathological condition than play.

No, it's a perfectly normal for the human imagination to be able to come up with neutral and unenjoyable things, and you are doing it as part of your normal thought processes even when you're not gaming. It would be far more spectacular for someone to be able to only make up stuff they enjoy.

And when you are presenting your stuff to an audience, whether you enjoy it is frequently not what counts.


Here's also the deal: The rules are not the laws of physics, and don't work in or even apply to every situation. Even when they do work or could apply, there's probably another way to resolve the same situation...

This is a prime example of you ignoring the spirit of my argument. The whole point was that for occasions such as the one described, the game rules might as well be in-universe physics: they're perfectly applicable, and the contradiction is caused by player ignoring them due to metagame information.

When you say "there's probably another way", you're not arguing against what I've said, you're just talking past me. My overarching point since my first post has been that said "another way" is the player taking a moment to think what's happening and come up with a better explanation. Your counter-argument mostly consists of moving the onus from the player to the GM.


And I'm seeing part of what is making you so uncivil: you think this is all about what would benefit a PC, and therefore about the PCs always foiling the GM's challenges.

Wrong. I could've used "player" instead of "player character" and it wouldn't have changed the spirit of what I'm arguing. It's not about the GM's challenges, it's about the players paying attention and thinking for themselves. As noted before, the GM can help, but there's a point where it just crosses to supporting player laziness.

And no, not everything at the table should happen to the benefit or enjoyment of any single player (GM included), as it's not guaranteed what benefits a single person will benefit everyone in the group. I saved this remark last, because it cuts to the heart of the matter: the idea that RPGs are purely collaborative. Even when it's a game's intended nature, conflict still can and does happen, meaning the GM in their role as a referee is still there to solve conflict between humans as necessary. The GM will frequently end in a situation where they can't please everybody, and that's something they have to accept.

Expecting games of such uncertain nature as most RPGs to please everyone at the table for an entire session is unworkable, and working towards that goal will often be more trouble than it's worth. "Perfect is good's greatest enemy", as they say. It's much more workable for everyone to play with the understanding that each game will have its lows and sucky bits, and occasionally playing without enjoyment is required to ever get to the enjoyable bits.

---

Now, to other posters:


The biggest thing I don't understand is, how forcing players to not use their often hard-won knowledge is a good thing?

Basically, I don't know what saying: "Your character doesn't know about trolls and flame, so you can't do that." adds to the game. How does it make it better?

Seeing as you're using material from my example, I have to point out you're missing the original message. The player can use their knowledge, they just have to do it without giving that knowledge to their character. The question from a player's perspective is, roughly, "I know they're trolls and the GM knows I know they're trolls, how do I convincingly play my character as not knowing they're trolls while still using fire against them?"

But taking your question at face value, there's one thing barring the obvious solution can add to any game: it forces the player to think and react differently. Limitations breed creativity, as they say. Of course, this angle will be completely missed if you start with the assumption that the GM is on a powertrip or otherwise trying to force you down one, set path.

NichG
2015-03-31, 09:30 PM
The point is that you can't reduce RPGs to "enjoyment", regardless of how enjoyable they are or reasonably should be. Being enjoyable is not what defines RPGs.

On the other hand, being a canonical example of playing an RPG is usually not the actual purpose of getting together and playing. Whether the activity that you end up pursuing with other people is technically consistent with a particular definition of RPGs isn't really relevant.

draken50
2015-03-31, 10:21 PM
Seeing as you're using material from my example, I have to point out you're missing the original message. The player can use their knowledge, they just have to do it without giving that knowledge to their character. The question from a player's perspective is, roughly, "I know they're trolls and the GM knows I know they're trolls, how do I convincingly play my character as not knowing they're trolls while still using fire against them?"

But taking your question at face value, there's one thing barring the obvious solution can add to any game: it forces the player to think and react differently. Limitations breed creativity, as they say. Of course, this angle will be completely missed if you start with the assumption that the GM is on a powertrip or otherwise trying to force you down one, set path.

So I'll grant you that potentially limiting player action in some degree can develop creativity. Anti-magic zones ect. I believe were likely designed for that reason. I will also grant that uses of such things can feel frustrating to characters accustomed to methodologies being successful or being specifically "nerfed."

The thing is, in the situation you just described, the player isn't limited in their action through any clearly defined means. Bound hands, anti magic, Archers attacking when ever a caster attempts a spell but not otherwise.

You're character is still allowed to use fire, by your own admission, but it evidently has to pass the unclear.."GM won't tell me I don't know to that" test. Additionally, it says that GM has made my character, and is in fact at will to play it as they see fit.

For they have decided they have control even over the very minutia of knowledge that my character has gleaned, and at that point feels that my character overhearing a chance conversation, or reading a passage that reveals said weakness sometime in the past, is so egregious an offence, that they would wrest the very control of my character away from me. Without save and without defense.

I whole-heartedly appreciate players who make the choice to do so in their own games. I applaud their willingness to potentially sacrifice their character and the effort they've put in to them for the sake of drama. I do not at this time feel the GM has as a right to attempt to force that upon their players.

Now then, that is my view. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how the limitation you have brought up has improved your games/sessions specifically. An anecdote or two would be welcome, and I would be even more interested if the GM did flat out rule that an action was invalid because the character "did not know that information."

Specifically related to monster weakness or the like would be bonus points.

Keltest
2015-04-01, 06:10 AM
You're character is still allowed to use fire, by your own admission, but it evidently has to pass the unclear.."GM won't tell me I don't know to that" test. Additionally, it says that GM has made my character, and is in fact at will to play it as they see fit.

The process is quite logical and clear, even without my fancy sage custom skills. Lets break it down by steps

The DM announces that a group of monsters break into your camp. Maybe he gives a physical description or shows a picture, but he doesn't tell you the name of the monster unless you've encountered them in the past (meaning this campaign), in which case you recognize them from the last time you did this process.

The DM then has everyone roll the relevant knowledge check to identify the monster, before any other actions happen. Anybody who succeeds recognizes the trolls and their weakness to fire. Anybody who fails does not.

Optional step: Have anyone who passed the check share their knowledge with the rest of the party. I usually just assume they do so out of hand to save time and tedium.

From there, combat happens, and grabbing a torch to light them on fire is a logical move.

If nobody passed the knowledge check, then their characters don't know about the troll's vulnerability to fire, and therefore abandoning an otherwise good weapon for a torch is completely illogical, and clearly metagaming.

Amphetryon
2015-04-01, 07:22 AM
The process is quite logical and clear, even without my fancy sage custom skills. Lets break it down by steps

The DM announces that a group of monsters break into your camp. Maybe he gives a physical description or shows a picture, but he doesn't tell you the name of the monster unless you've encountered them in the past (meaning this campaign), in which case you recognize them from the last time you did this process.

The DM then has everyone roll the relevant knowledge check to identify the monster, before any other actions happen. Anybody who succeeds recognizes the trolls and their weakness to fire. Anybody who fails does not.

Optional step: Have anyone who passed the check share their knowledge with the rest of the party. I usually just assume they do so out of hand to save time and tedium.

From there, combat happens, and grabbing a torch to light them on fire is a logical move.

If nobody passed the knowledge check, then their characters don't know about the troll's vulnerability to fire, and therefore abandoning an otherwise good weapon for a torch is completely illogical, and clearly metagaming.
As Flickerdart pointed out up-thread, abandoning an otherwise good weapon for a torch is practically always illogical, even against Trolls, due to the pitiful damage output. Grabbing a torch to finish off a Troll once it's been knocked unconscious would make far more sense, but, from what I can tell from the above, would be "clearly metagaming" unless the Trolls had somehow taken fire damage during the combat that knocked them into the negatives AND the Characters had made appropriate Skill-based deductions as to the effect of that fire damage, compared to other damage. In the absence of such circumstance, anything other than a protracted slog through knocking the Troll unconscious, watching it heal, beating it into negative HP again, and repeating until A) the Players got bored (itself a metagame problem), B) the Characters left the Troll they presumed dead to (eventually) Regenerate and either follow them or go wreak havoc elsewhere, or C) serendipity exposed the Troll to fire and/or acid damage sufficient to finally finish it off would be inappropriate behavior in your campaigns.

On the other hand, Dungeonscape does provide a Weapon and Torch Feat (p47); would a Character be metagaming to take that Feat? Why, or why not? Would a Character who took that Feat prior to any encounters with Trolls be metagaming to arm herself with her Morningstar and torch before wading into combat? Why, or why not?

Keltest
2015-04-01, 07:29 AM
As Flickerdart pointed out up-thread, abandoning an otherwise good weapon for a torch is practically always illogical, even against Trolls, due to the pitiful damage output. Grabbing a torch to finish off a Troll once it's been knocked unconscious would make far more sense, but, from what I can tell from the above, would be "clearly metagaming" unless the Trolls had somehow taken fire damage during the combat that knocked them into the negatives AND the Characters had made appropriate Skill-based deductions as to the effect of that fire damage, compared to other damage. In the absence of such circumstance, anything other than a protracted slog through knocking the Troll unconscious, watching it heal, beating it into negative HP again, and repeating until A) the Players got bored (itself a metagame problem), B) the Characters left the Troll they presumed dead to (eventually) Regenerate and either follow them or go wreak havoc elsewhere, or C) serendipity exposed the Troll to fire and/or acid damage sufficient to finally finish it off would be inappropriate behavior in your campaigns.

On the other hand, Dungeonscape does provide a Weapon and Torch Feat (p47); would a Character be metagaming to take that Feat? Why, or why not? Would a Character who took that Feat prior to any encounters with Trolls be metagaming to arm herself with her Morningstar and torch before wading into combat? Why, or why not?

Ultimately, the question you (as the player) would need to answer to me (the DM) is "Why are you doing this? What is the thought process?" If I find it satisfactory (ie, doesn't involve information your character doesn't have and makes logical sense) then ill let it slide. Heck, I might let it slide anyway if its funny enough.

Amphetryon
2015-04-01, 07:49 AM
Ultimately, the question you (as the player) would need to answer to me (the DM) is "Why are you doing this? What is the thought process?" If I find it satisfactory (ie, doesn't involve information your character doesn't have and makes logical sense) then ill let it slide. Heck, I might let it slide anyway if its funny enough.

Any answer the Player gives you is a metagame one, entirely centered around that Player talking to you, the DM, and not speaking in-character.

Keltest
2015-04-01, 08:00 AM
Any answer the Player gives you is a metagame one, entirely centered around that Player talking to you, the DM, and not speaking in-character.

Youre being needlessly pedantic here. By that definition, the entire game is metagame. If you want to continue to argue, by all means. But do it with someone who is interested in arguing the pointless nuance of the exact definition of metagame.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-01, 08:14 AM
On the other hand, being a canonical example of playing an RPG is usually not the actual purpose of getting together and playing. Whether the activity that you end up pursuing with other people is technically consistent with a particular definition of RPGs isn't really relevant.

It is relevant because the things that define RPGs set them apart from other hobbies, and specific rules set games apart from each other. Consider how often tabletop gaming is confused for LARPing. Both are something that are supposed to be enjoyable, but if I say "let's play RPGs" and you turn up expecting the former when I meant the latter, there is disagreement on the purpose of getting together. Ditto if what I meant with RPGs is LotFP when you expected FATE.



You're character is still allowed to use fire, by your own admission, but it evidently has to pass the unclear.."GM won't tell me I don't know to that" test. Additionally, it says that GM has made my character, and is in fact at will to play it as they see fit.

I, the GM, have not told you through the game they are trolls. You only know it via your out-of-game knowledge, because you read the adventure beforehand or some such. Again: this is the very definition of metagaming. If you can't tell what the GM has told you, that's not a problem with the situation being unclear, that's a problem with you as the player not paying attention. There's no "GM won't tell me" test, on the contrary the whole point is that I as the GM will tell you if your character doesn't know something.

It's irrelevant whether the GM made the character or you made the character. In neither case does the character know, because the knowledge has not been brought up in-game at all. The character did not pass the knowledge check, the information is not written on their sheet, so on and so forth.


Now then, that is my view. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how the limitation you have brought up has improved your games/sessions specifically. An anecdote or two would be welcome, and I would be even more interested if the GM did flat out rule that an action was invalid because the character "did not know that information."

Let's go back to the example of the thief choosing a passageway within LOS of character A, but outside LOS of character B. I picked this example precisely because it occurs so commonly.

Allowing player of B to metagame their way to the thief makes presence of A irrelevant. Not allowing it means A now has strategic information that B doesn't. Hence, A can use it as a bargaining chip with B - they could ask a favor in exchange of telling where the thief is - or they could use it to mislead B down the wrong path in order to protect the thief, or go and kill the thief themself.

All of these have happened in my games. Of course, these angles are missed too if you see RPGs are purely collaborative with no conflict of player interest.

Another example would be a game where I was a player, where we were guests in a castle of vampires. Of course every player knew there were vampires, but acting on that information would've undermined whole point of it, as all our characters were non-superstitious folks from a secular setting. Without willful ignorance of there being vampires, the game would've been very short with no roleplaying in it. With willful ignorance of the fact, we actually got dramatic moments of character shock, surprise and terror, and the game lasted for much longer. Specifically, one character became defined by their attempts to find secret passageways to rationally explain sudden vanishing of the vampires (his increasingly desperate explanations were pretty funny too.) Wouldn't have happend had the player somehow rationalized knowing the vampires can turn to smoke.

In cases like this, ignorance of metagame information in favor of following the rules and rulings of the game is similar to willing suspension of disbelief when perusing storytelling media.

Flickerdart
2015-04-01, 08:46 AM
Youre being needlessly pedantic here. By that definition, the entire game is metagame.
Pretty much. Any experience is defined by its context; the game and the metagame are inextricable and in many ways congruent.

NichG
2015-04-01, 10:09 AM
It is relevant because the things that define RPGs set them apart from other hobbies, and specific rules set games apart from each other. Consider how often tabletop gaming is confused for LARPing. Both are something that are supposed to be enjoyable, but if I say "let's play RPGs" and you turn up expecting the former when I meant the latter, there is disagreement on the purpose of getting together. Ditto if what I meant with RPGs is LotFP when you expected FATE.

But it doesn't really matter if other people are confused about what we're doing if we're all on the same page about it. It could be LARPing or RPGing or playing refluffed tiddlywinks or some complicated mishmash of all of that. The definition can help get people on the same page when they wouldn't be, but its by no means the only way to do so - discussion of the game people want, etc can all do this too, and without having to rely on the assumption that everyone interprets 'RPG' to mean the same thing (they don't, so...). Once we're on the same page, the definitions have served their purpose and might as well be discarded.

Or to paraphrase Dragon Age, 'definitions must serve man, not rule over him'

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-01, 10:50 AM
You can't get people on the same page regarding anything if they can't agree on what things mean. Discarding meanings doesn't help squat, it only serves to reintroduce the confusion.

We don't rely on people's assumption's, no - but that's because we have written-down rules and referees to oversee them. "Discussion of what people want" is not a different way at all, any rational discussion will include defining terminology precisely to avoid semantic confusion.

draken50
2015-04-01, 11:35 AM
Ultimately, the question you (as the player) would need to answer to me (the DM) is "Why are you doing this? What is the thought process?" If I find it satisfactory (ie, doesn't involve information your character doesn't have and makes logical sense) then ill let it slide. Heck, I might let it slide anyway if its funny enough.

Ah, I see...

I think this may be where people have the biggest conflict.

See, I don't think that players need to justify their characters actions and thought process to the GM because they aren't the GMs characters. I would flatly say that I would find a game where I would need to justify any given action to the GM as disagreeable and overly controlling.

Are their players that play in said environment? Sure... I just would not be one of them. I appreciate your willingness to explain the how's and why's of your methodology, but I do think that they are too controlling, and don't demonstrate trust in your players.

NichG
2015-04-01, 11:47 AM
You can't get people on the same page regarding anything if they can't agree on what things mean. Discarding meanings doesn't help squat, it only serves to reintroduce the confusion.

We don't rely on people's assumption's, no - but that's because we have written-down rules and referees to oversee them. "Discussion of what people want" is not a different way at all, any rational discussion will include defining terminology precisely to avoid semantic confusion.

It really doesn't require something nearly this rigid to get a group of people and put together a game they'll all enjoy. In fact, this is playing against human strengths - people are flexible, expressive, and responsive. Trying to draft the game like a contract is just going to mean that a person's ability to be satisfied with the experience is limited by their ability to translate what they actually want into precise terms. But most people can't do that very well, if at all.

Instead you can see what people respond positively to and what they respond negatively to, and adjust the game to optimize that. That's the whole point about the 'enjoyment' criterion - rather than committing yourself and your friends to be miserable because it turns out you messed up when trying to precisely specify what you wanted 6 months ago, you recognize that the purpose of that exercise was to find the compromise game that everyone there could enjoy, and then just target that enjoyment directly.

Keltest
2015-04-01, 12:33 PM
Ah, I see...

I think this may be where people have the biggest conflict.

See, I don't think that players need to justify their characters actions and thought process to the GM because they aren't the GMs characters. I would flatly say that I would find a game where I would need to justify any given action to the GM as disagreeable and overly controlling.

Are their players that play in said environment? Sure... I just would not be one of them. I appreciate your willingness to explain the how's and why's of your methodology, but I do think that they are too controlling, and don't demonstrate trust in your players.

Its not about trust. I generally trust my players to, you know, roleplay during a roleplaying game. Its what happens when they break that trust by abandoning the roleplay. If they don't want to, I wotn force them to show up, but I have no interest in "running" a game where they can do whatever they feel like for no reason. Half the point of the DM is to enforce the limitations of the game.

draken50
2015-04-01, 01:56 PM
Its not about trust. I generally trust my players to, you know, roleplay during a roleplaying game. Its what happens when they break that trust by abandoning the roleplay. If they don't want to, I wotn force them to show up, but I have no interest in "running" a game where they can do whatever they feel like for no reason. Half the point of the DM is to enforce the limitations of the game.

Which is why we have wildly different views. I consider the role of the GM to create a game to entertain the players. If there is a mismatch between the players views of entertainment and the GMs or perhaps the other players, then I would say that the game may not be a good fit. If my GM considered it his role to arbitrate whether what I am doing is "roleplaying" or not, I would believe that the gm did not trust me to do it myself.

Additionally, I would expect my GM to work to ensure that he did not create situations where he would feel obligated to tell me how to play my character. Basically, I feel that if the GM sees it as their role to tell players how to play... I don't want to play with them.

I don't want this to come off as "you are playing wrong." For instance I don't like onions, I will not eat food with onions. That doesn't mean food with onions is bad, or in anyway inferior, simply that I don't like it. You may want to consider however, that regardless of your intentions, players hearing that you are the arbiter of correct or incorrect actions, for the sake of "roleplaying" an oft nebulous term, particularly when using a set of criteria that by your own admission changes based off of a kind of "sillyness" quotient. As that could easily be misconstrued by many as... controlling.

Keltest
2015-04-01, 02:03 PM
Which is why we have wildly different views. I consider the role of the GM to create a game to entertain the players. If there is a mismatch between the players views of entertainment and the GMs or perhaps the other players, then I would say that the game may not be a good fit. If my GM considered it his role to arbitrate whether what I am doing is "roleplaying" or not, I would believe that the gm did not trust me to do it myself.

Additionally, I would expect my GM to work to ensure that he did not create situations where he would feel obligated to tell me how to play my character. Basically, I feel that if the GM sees it as their role to tell players how to play... I don't want to play with them.

I don't want this to come off as "you are playing wrong." For instance I don't like onions, I will not eat food with onions. That doesn't mean food with onions is bad, or in anyway inferior, simply that I don't like it. You may want to consider however, that regardless of your intentions, players hearing that you are the arbiter of correct or incorrect actions, for the sake of "roleplaying" an oft nebulous term, particularly when using a set of criteria that by your own admission changes based off of a kind of "sillyness" quotient. As that could easily be misconstrued by many as... controlling.

Im not sure I understand how "I know its a troll because I read the monster manual, so I go and burn the body with a torch from the campfire" is roleplaying. Its not like im questioning everyone's most minute actions. But when I cant figure out why their character would know/be able to do something in game, im going to call them on it. It may be that im totally forgetting about that one time the party encountered trolls last year, in which case I will let them carry on with the incineration. But if they cant provide any reason they would just randomly decide to burn these bodies for no apparent reason, im going to call them out on it.

themaque
2015-04-01, 02:04 PM
Its not about trust. I generally trust my players to, you know, roleplay during a roleplaying game. Its what happens when they break that trust by abandoning the roleplay. If they don't want to, I wotn force them to show up, but I have no interest in "running" a game where they can do whatever they feel like for no reason. Half the point of the DM is to enforce the limitations of the game.

This applies even more so when you start playing games with looser rules such as 5e not to mention rules light games such as the FATE system.

draken50
2015-04-01, 02:45 PM
Im not sure I understand how "I know its a troll because I read the monster manual, so I go and burn the body with a torch from the campfire" is roleplaying. Its not like im questioning everyone's most minute actions. But when I cant figure out why their character would know/be able to do something in game, im going to call them on it. It may be that im totally forgetting about that one time the party encountered trolls last year, in which case I will let them carry on with the incineration. But if they cant provide any reason they would just randomly decide to burn these bodies for no apparent reason, im going to call them out on it.

The reason it can come off as controlling, is because the default of an action is a negative, unless YOU.. NOT THE PLAYER decide that the action is correct. You are saying you don't do it for everything, however, the player does not know what actions trigger your arbitration, and as such it is there by default. You say NO, unless you decide that something is acceptable.

Keltest
2015-04-01, 02:48 PM
The reason it can come off as controlling, is because the default of an action is a negative, unless YOU.. NOT THE PLAYER decide that the action is correct. You are saying you don't do it for everything, however, the player does not know what actions trigger your arbitration, and as such it is there by default. You say NO, unless you decide that something is acceptable.

If the player does not know what is causing the arbitration, its because they weren't paying attention, which is hardly something I can control. Players are smarter than youre giving them credit for. Theyre usually aware of when theyre metagaming.

Let me ask you something. Youre DMing a session, and one of your players tries to use a shield to block an attack. Problem is, he doesn't have a shield at all. What would you do there?

draken50
2015-04-01, 02:59 PM
If the player does not know what is causing the arbitration, its because they weren't paying attention, which is hardly something I can control. Players are smarter than youre giving them credit for. Theyre usually aware of when theyre metagaming.

Let me ask you something. Youre DMing a session, and one of your players tries to use a shield to block an attack. Problem is, he doesn't have a shield at all. What would you do there?

State that I don't recall them having a shield, much less equipping one, but that they can attempt to block with a weapon if applicable.

Keltest
2015-04-01, 03:03 PM
State that I don't recall them having a shield, much less equipping one, but that they can attempt to block with a weapon if applicable.

Uh huh. And yet that is exactly the behavior that you are objecting to.

Its not like im jumping up on the table and frothing at the mouth, but a DM HAS to say "no" sometimes.

Amphetryon
2015-04-01, 06:26 PM
Uh huh. And yet that is exactly the behavior that you are objecting to.

Its not like im jumping up on the table and frothing at the mouth, but a DM HAS to say "no" sometimes.

No, an analogous behavior is not exactly the behavior. Two 147 lb boxers are not exactly the same welterweight fighter, are they?

Similarly, an 'acceptable level of metagame' is not the same as 'zero metagame once the game has started,' which is the goal some have stated in this thread.

draken50
2015-04-01, 08:12 PM
Uh huh. And yet that is exactly the behavior that you are objecting to.

Its not like im jumping up on the table and frothing at the mouth, but a DM HAS to say "no" sometimes.

It's clear you view this in a completely different manner, but no those are not applicable.

The correct analogy would be that the character purchased a shield, states that they would like to equip the shield and you then tell them that, their character wouldn't use a shield because that's not in their character. Or tries to use the shield to block an attack, but is told, that is metagaming because they are trying to raise their AC but that you feel they wouldn't be defensive and they should in fact be power attacking.

Or wasn't allowed to purchase a shield in the first place because that would be preparing for a combat that the metagame would tell them would likely be forthcoming due to it being an rpg that involves combat rules, including perhaps those for purchasing,equipping or otherwise using a shield.

See in my case, I'd expect that my player planned to purchase a shield the last time they were in the city for situations where they would want it. Now if said shopping trip was to occur between sessions I may actually rule that they have a shield if they took no actions that would have been impossible with it in the prior rounds.

Thrudd
2015-04-01, 11:24 PM
Dilemma: Reducing metagaming (taking in-game actions based on player knowledge not accessible to the character) in a game with group of experienced players with various degrees of encyclopedic knowledge of core D&D material.

Solution 1.) the setting is of a cosmopolitan nature, where information about monsters and magic is known even to non-adventurers. Most people know of all the spells and what they do, that trolls need to be burned, and pretty much anything in the books. Players using their knowledge from past games is not metagaming, because even their 1st level characters can know that stuff.

Solution 2.) create a setting with almost all custom monsters, don't use all standard magic items. Even Experienced players can't metagame because they really don't know any information except what their characters do (what the DM has chosen to reveal to them). I like this because it lets you run a game that is really about exploration and discovery.

Or combine both.

I prefer not to ask or force players to pretend they don't know things and have to make dangerous choices for their characters. I prefer the players really don't know things, so they can discover things through trial and error and unknowingly make dangerous choices. :)

Lord Raziere
2015-04-01, 11:55 PM
@ Thrudd: a good trick, is to use official monsters, but to name and describe them differently. sure the stats are the same, but the players don't know that so they have to find out how to beat them all over again even if they already know. useful when your feeling lazy.

Keltest
2015-04-02, 05:28 AM
It's clear you view this in a completely different manner, but no those are not applicable.

The correct analogy would be that the character purchased a shield, states that they would like to equip the shield and you then tell them that, their character wouldn't use a shield because that's not in their character. Or tries to use the shield to block an attack, but is told, that is metagaming because they are trying to raise their AC but that you feel they wouldn't be defensive and they should in fact be power attacking.

Or wasn't allowed to purchase a shield in the first place because that would be preparing for a combat that the metagame would tell them would likely be forthcoming due to it being an rpg that involves combat rules, including perhaps those for purchasing,equipping or otherwise using a shield.

See in my case, I'd expect that my player planned to purchase a shield the last time they were in the city for situations where they would want it. Now if said shopping trip was to occur between sessions I may actually rule that they have a shield if they took no actions that would have been impossible with it in the prior rounds.

How is it not applicable? In one situation theyre trying to use an item that they do not have. In the other, theyre trying to use knowledge they don't have. If you assume that they bought it when you (the DM) weren't looking, whats next? A ring of fire resistance the next time they get fireballed? Boots of Speed next time they need to run away? Where do you draw the line between "fair enough" and "Cheating"?

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-02, 07:30 AM
It really doesn't require something nearly this rigid to get a group of people and put together a game they'll all enjoy.

Uh huh.

My definition of the players' part in RPGs was deciding what their characters are doing & how & why. If the player doesn't enjoy choosing the what, explain to me how they are or even should be playing a game. If the player doesn't enjoy thinking and choosing how and why, explain to me how they are or even should be roleplaying.

Also, find me an RPG where the what, how and why of a character are not important.


Trying to draft the game like a contract is just going to mean that a person's ability to be satisfied with the experience is limited by their ability to translate what they actually want into precise terms. But most people can't do that very well, if at all.

The inability of people to tell what they mean will limit their satisfaction in common, everyday speech. In a word-based medium, I don't need to draft my game like a contract for it to be an issue. Nevermind that, in light of current psychological and social theorems, all games are contracts. A contract doesn't need to be comparable to legal text in detail in order to be clear. Even if a lot of popular games do fit that criteria as well.


Instead you can see what people respond positively to and what they respond negatively to, and adjust the game to optimize that. That's the whole point about the 'enjoyment' criterion - rather than committing yourself and your friends to be miserable because it turns out you messed up when trying to precisely specify what you wanted 6 months ago, you recognize that the purpose of that exercise was to find the compromise game that everyone there could enjoy, and then just target that enjoyment directly.

The underlying assumption here is that there is a game everyone at the table could enjoy that will still count as an RPG.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-02, 07:34 AM
Theyre usually aware of when theyre metagaming.


I hope this sentence is satire, because otherwise it implies a person can metagame without knowing it.

That's simply not possible. Metagaming is using out-of-game information to make your in-game decisions. You can't metagame if you have no such information.

NichG
2015-04-02, 08:28 AM
Uh huh.

My definition of the players' part in RPGs was deciding what their characters are doing & how & why. If the player doesn't enjoy choosing the what, explain to me how they are or even should be playing a game. If the player doesn't enjoy thinking and choosing how and why, explain to me how they are or even should be roleplaying.

Also, find me an RPG where the what, how and why of a character are not important.


What I'm saying is that whether they are 'playing a game' or 'roleplaying' or whatever from the point of view of formal definitions is irrelevant. If the game forgets that its an RPG for a scene or two but everyone is having fun then that's fine, even if everyone ostensibly gathered 'to play an RPG', because the underlying reason that they decided 'to play an RPG' was because thats something they thought they'd enjoy in a particular way they were seeking. If they still achieve that enjoyment but what causes it turns out to not have been an RPG by some formal definition, then so what?

The game exists for the sake of the players (which includes the DM) and not vice versa.

So if the what, how, and why of a character are important, that's because somehow it connects to the players being satisfied with the way things play out. If that satisfaction can be achieved via ways that break the formal definition but still scratch that particular itch, then that's fine. Yes these things can be important because they aim the experience in a certain direction, but they aren't sacrosanct. They're important because of how they influence a player's experience, not for their own sake.


The underlying assumption here is that there is a game everyone at the table could enjoy that will still count as an RPG.

I'm objecting to the assumption that 'counting as an RPG' is intrinsically valuable, because it excludes the possibility of optimizing the experience even further and finding a game that everyone will enjoy more at the cost of it not technically counting as an RPG from the point of view of some or other formal definition.

draken50
2015-04-02, 10:11 AM
How is it not applicable? In one situation theyre trying to use an item that they do not have. In the other, theyre trying to use knowledge they don't have. If you assume that they bought it when you (the DM) weren't looking, whats next? A ring of fire resistance the next time they get fireballed? Boots of Speed next time they need to run away? Where do you draw the line between "fair enough" and "Cheating"?

Honestly Keltest... it's never come up. The shield thing did, and it occurred in a game where the character had just unlocked an ability called "shield charge." This ability was their character's first ability that not only used but required a shield. Was in town, was told all normal rarity items were available for purchase, and then had a fairly extended conversation with the party about what rarer items they would take the time to seek out, likely distracting him from that purpose. It really only came up becuase he hadn't yet learned that equipping a shield is a more complex action in the system we were using (Earthdawn 3.0)

As too, "Suddenly a ring of fire resistance appears." It's never happened once. I've got a fair memory for these things too. Again though, I feel that's due mutual trust between me and my players.

Additionally, let me ask you this. The player went and trained for a fair period of time in a shield ability under an instructor. An ability he would have to use in order to raise his circle(level, but acknowledged in game, like a rank.) And then DIDN'T BUY ONE.

So... would you tell the player he didn't have a shield to use, or perhaps you have stopped his character from leaving town first, because it wasn't good roleplaying?
After all... his character wouldn't have done that.

Keltest
2015-04-02, 11:22 AM
I hope this sentence is satire, because otherwise it implies a person can metagame without knowing it.

That's simply not possible. Metagaming is using out-of-game information to make your in-game decisions. You can't metagame if you have no such information.

I have had people unconsciously metagame before without really realizing theyre doing it. Most commonly its when theyre trying recommend another course of action to another player who's character could not actually communicate with them. If I point out that "XXX's character cant hear you" they'll go "Oh, yeah, oops." and then proceed to talk to the other player anyway, because its a game after all.


Honestly Keltest... it's never come up. The shield thing did, and it occurred in a game where the character had just unlocked an ability called "shield charge." This ability was their character's first ability that not only used but required a shield. Was in town, was told all normal rarity items were available for purchase, and then had a fairly extended conversation with the party about what rarer items they would take the time to seek out, likely distracting him from that purpose. It really only came up becuase he hadn't yet learned that equipping a shield is a more complex action in the system we were using (Earthdawn 3.0)

As too, "Suddenly a ring of fire resistance appears." It's never happened once. I've got a fair memory for these things too. Again though, I feel that's due mutual trust between me and my players.

Additionally, let me ask you this. The player went and trained for a fair period of time in a shield ability under an instructor. An ability he would have to use in order to raise his circle(level, but acknowledged in game, like a rank.) And then DIDN'T BUY ONE.

So... would you tell the player he didn't have a shield to use, or perhaps you have stopped his character from leaving town first, because it wasn't good roleplaying?
After all... his character wouldn't have done that.

Youre changing the scenario on me. I made no mention of being fresh from a shopping trip in my scenario. If youre distracting them while shopping or it otherwise takes a while and you want to move on while you wait for them to look for every 10' pole they need, by all means, let them retroactively shop a bit. If theyre halfway through a dungeon and suddenly a shield would be useful, they cant just materialize one.

Flickerdart
2015-04-02, 11:31 AM
I have had people unconsciously metagame before without really realizing theyre doing it. Most commonly its when theyre trying recommend another course of action to another player who's character could not actually communicate with them. If I point out that "XXX's character cant hear you" they'll go "Oh, yeah, oops." and then proceed to talk to the other player anyway, because its a game after all.
There's no reason players shouldn't be able to offer each other tactical advice out-of-character. Communicating in-game information that one character wouldn't know is a no-no, of course, but "come on, power attack him for more" or "remember that you picked up Lightning Bolt last level" are fine things to say.

Keltest
2015-04-02, 12:51 PM
There's no reason players shouldn't be able to offer each other tactical advice out-of-character. Communicating in-game information that one character wouldn't know is a no-no, of course, but "come on, power attack him for more" or "remember that you picked up Lightning Bolt last level" are fine things to say.

Yeah, that's one type of metagaming I wont put much fight up over. At the end of the day, the players aren't veteran adventurers, and frankly theres a good chance that they don't even have all the relevant information available to them in any given scenario unless they think to ask for every tiny little detail. So if they don't have the split second reaction time and incredible intelligence of their characters, I wont hold it against them.

Amphetryon
2015-04-02, 01:16 PM
Yeah, that's one type of metagaming I wont put much fight up over. At the end of the day, the players aren't veteran adventurers, and frankly theres a good chance that they don't even have all the relevant information available to them in any given scenario unless they think to ask for every tiny little detail. So if they don't have the split second reaction time and incredible intelligence of their characters, I wont hold it against them.

That sounds like a fairly adversarial approach to the GM/Player relationship, built - in part - on 'gotcha gaming.'

Keltest
2015-04-02, 01:25 PM
That sounds like a fairly adversarial approach to the GM/Player relationship, built - in part - on 'gotcha gaming.'

Im only human. I cant possibly think of every tiny detail that would affect the decision making process. If I forget to tell the player something that prevents their plan from working, ill usually say "Oops, sorry, forgot to mention that" and let them do a different action on the assumption that their character's sensory organs are more reliable than my ability to describe a scene.

draken50
2015-04-02, 02:56 PM
Youre changing the scenario on me. I made no mention of being fresh from a shopping trip in my scenario. If youre distracting them while shopping or it otherwise takes a while and you want to move on while you wait for them to look for every 10' pole they need, by all means, let them retroactively shop a bit. If theyre halfway through a dungeon and suddenly a shield would be useful, they cant just materialize one.

That's right, because my scenario was one that actually happened with REAL PLAYERS in a REAL GAME. As opposed to being designed to show what happens if you are "permissive" of a-hole players out to lie and cheat their way to success in your imaginary world. Behavior that has never happened at my table, will not happen at my table and is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to my games.

You are trying to argue that these things are the same. They are not.

I have said and will say that you can play however the heck you want.

However...

If you want to disagree with people who are seeing you as an adversarial and/or controlling GM, however, you need to understand that this is occurring because things you think are "exactly the same" are... in other peoples minds... are in fact not exactly the same. Additionally, and perhaps even more so, because the role that you seem to so firmly believe the GM has, as arbiter of player action, roleplaying, decision making in game is not agreed with by many other players and GMs.

themaque
2015-04-02, 03:33 PM
If you want to disagree with people who are seeing you as an adversarial and/or controlling GM, however, you need to understand that this is occurring because things you think are "exactly the same" are... in other peoples minds... are in fact not exactly the same. Additionally, and perhaps even more so, because the role that you seem to so firmly believe the GM has, as arbiter of player action, roleplaying, decision making in game is not agreed with by many other players and GMs.

Fair to a point, but the GM IS the final judgment in player action, role playing, and decision making. It just depends from table to table and from game to game how deep that goes.

I've played with people who have expected you to bend over backwards for them, because they have a story background written where they are illegitimate son of Elminster, and inheritor of his power so wants to start the game with a rod of lordly might. Who come up with random stuff from their background to have an excuse for anything you can imagine. This is a role playing game, not a game of "I win". Now that's certainly an outlier example, but it IS a real life experience for me. In many if not most gaming groups that stuff just won't fly.

The GM's responsibility IS to ensure that everyone is having fun and the game is running smoothly. Sometimes that means telling a player NO. Many times it means telling them YES.

draken50
2015-04-02, 04:38 PM
Fair to a point, but the GM IS the final judgment in player action, role playing, and decision making. It just depends from table to table and from game to game how deep that goes.

I've played with people who have expected you to bend over backwards for them, because they have a story background written where they are illegitimate son of Elminster, and inheritor of his power so wants to start the game with a rod of lordly might. Who come up with random stuff from their background to have an excuse for anything you can imagine. This is a role playing game, not a game of "I win". Now that's certainly an outlier example, but it IS a real life experience for me. In many if not most gaming groups that stuff just won't fly.

The GM's responsibility IS to ensure that everyone is having fun and the game is running smoothly. Sometimes that means telling a player NO. Many times it means telling them YES.

Which is a gain a difference in mindset. I personally as a GM only consider myself the arbiter of player action in the sense of determining the success or failure of said action, and the related consequences, also if I feel that arbitration of "Roleplaying" and "Decision Making" is in my players hands for their characters.

I agree that it is not a game of "I win", and that players do need to be told no, often in relation to character creation and in some cases related to behavior. For instance I will state frankly that I do not want PVP in my games and that I expect the players, and their characters to generally get along. I do understand that it can easily be perceived as the same thing, but I and I feel many others, consider it to be very separate situations, and I feel that the boundaries of what I have determined to be acceptable behavior for my players are far more clearly delineated for both their and my benefit.

I want to be clear here. While I'm saying there are people who will call these DMs controlling and antagonistic, in some cases myself included, this is with the full knowledge that some players would call my practices controlling and antagonistic.

I won't let you play Elminster's more powerful evil twin in a PVP game, and their are players who may scream "You're controlling and eliminating player agency and that's antagonistic" and I'll say "Yup... Good thing you aren't and won't ever be in my game huh?"

Because here's the thing.. I'm so controlling and antagonistic that if I don't trust you to be playing in the same spirit of the game as my other players and myself are... you aren't in my game... period.

But if you are in my game, you have my trust, and your character is completely within your control. Your choices from the grand to the mundane are yours and yours alone, and I don't say this just to the forum. This is what I tell my players.

That behavior is what I may have a hard time finding... but it is what I expect as player myself.

Keltest
2015-04-02, 04:49 PM
Which is a gain a difference in mindset. I personally as a GM only consider myself the arbiter of player action in the sense of determining the success or failure of said action, and the related consequences, also if I feel that arbitration of "Roleplaying" and "Decision Making" is in my players hands for their characters.

I agree that it is not a game of "I win", and that players do need to be told no, often in relation to character creation and in some cases related to behavior. For instance I will state frankly that I do not want PVP in my games and that I expect the players, and their characters to generally get along. I do understand that it can easily be perceived as the same thing, but I and I feel many others, consider it to be very separate situations, and I feel that the boundaries of what I have determined to be acceptable behavior for my players are far more clearly delineated for both their and my benefit.

I want to be clear here. While I'm saying there are people who will call these DMs controlling and antagonistic, in some cases myself included, this is with the full knowledge that some players would call my practices controlling and antagonistic.

I won't let you play Elminster's more powerful evil twin in a PVP game, and their are players who may scream "You're controlling and eliminating player agency and that's antagonistic" and I'll say "Yup... Good thing you aren't and won't ever be in my game huh?"

Because here's the thing.. I'm so controlling and antagonistic that if I don't trust you to be playing in the same spirit of the game as my other players and myself are... you aren't in my game... period.

But if you are in my game, you have my trust, and your character is completely within your control. Your choices from the grand to the mundane are yours and yours alone, and I don't say this just to the forum. This is what I tell my players.

That behavior is what I may have a hard time finding... but it is what I expect as player myself.

So you don't think its controlling to tell players they flat out aren't allowed to PvP (a decision I agree with on principal, but that's beside the point) but you think it is controlling to disallow the materialization of items out of thin air? :smallconfused:

draken50
2015-04-02, 05:31 PM
So you don't think its controlling to tell players they flat out aren't allowed to PvP (a decision I agree with on principal, but that's beside the point) but you think it is controlling to disallow the materialization of items out of thin air? :smallconfused:

Actually, the materialization was an example you brought up, and it is not something I have to disallow. If you wish to swing a sword you don't have you can plainly do that. I tell the player that they have no reason to believe the attempt will be successful as a result, but they can try it if they wish.

Your example of materialization of an item was to try to demonstrate that player knowledge used in game and materialization of useful items was the same thing... which I disagreed with stating plainly I felt they were different. You created the argument that the two were equal, I never did.

I stated that I do not tell a player that they cannot attempt an action. I never stated that there was a reasonable, or actual possibility of that action succeeding. Again... I arbitrate the consequences of PC actions, but never the actions themselves, and I consider it only fair to ensure that the player knows that success is unlikely or impossible before it is attempted.

For instance a player attempting to jump a gorge that is 50' across thinking it was 5'. I won't tell them the character doesn't jump. I will ensure they understand the situation, make sure I understand the intent of their action and then arbitrate the consequences knowing that I as the GM and they as the player clearly understand the situation.

Keltest
2015-04-02, 05:40 PM
Actually, the materialization was an example you brought up, and it is not something I have to disallow. If you wish to swing a sword you don't have you can plainly do that. I tell the player that they have no reason to believe the attempt will be successful as a result, but they can try it if they wish.

Your example of materialization of an item was to try to demonstrate that player knowledge used in game and materialization of useful items was the same thing... which I disagreed with stating plainly I felt they were different. You created the argument that the two were equal, I never did.

I stated that I do not tell a player that they cannot attempt an action. I never stated that there was a reasonable, or actual possibility of that action succeeding. Again... I arbitrate the consequences of PC actions, but never the actions themselves, and I consider it only fair to ensure that the player knows that success is unlikely or impossible before it is attempted.

For instance a player attempting to jump a gorge that is 50' across thinking it was 5'. I won't tell them the character doesn't jump. I will ensure they understand the situation, make sure I understand the intent of their action and then arbitrate the consequences knowing that I as the GM and they as the player clearly understand the situation.

:smallannoyed:

Youre dancing around the argument here. In your "swinging a sword they don't have" scenario, the result is the same whether you tell them "You are aware swinging a sword you don't have wont work, right?" or "You don't have a sword, do something different." If the player continues to swign around empty air like a longsword, it may lead to a conversation about whether or not they actually want to play the game, but no matter what you are going to tell the player that no sword gets swung.

Time and again your examples are jumping not to player cheating, but miscommunication between the player and the GM. That is not remotely the same thing.

draken50
2015-04-02, 05:48 PM
:smallannoyed:

Youre dancing around the argument here. In your "swinging a sword they don't have" scenario, the result is the same whether you tell them "You are aware swinging a sword you don't have wont work, right?" or "You don't have a sword, do something different." If the player continues to swign around empty air like a longsword, it may lead to a conversation about whether or not they actually want to play the game, but no matter what you are going to tell the player that no sword gets swung.

You are missing the key difference.

I tell the Player that they don't have a sword to swing with... but they can still attempt that action, and then they may go along with it for humor or roleplaying or whatever and that their character attempts to draw and swing their blade with a mighty strike... that unfortunately is missing the pointy metal bit they are accustomed to.

You tell the player. "You can't do that. It's not what your character would do."

See our example is trolls and fire. You say "You don't know to use fire, you can't do that."

I let them do what they want.

Now said trolls might not be weak to fire, or might in fact be really weak to fire, but really good at tackling people while dying, or regularly consume gunpowder and nails knowing that the damage they'd take for consuming such things will heal quickly, and the pain is worth destroying the enemies of their clan. Or they might just be trolls.

But I let the player do what they want. I don't tell them they can't do things because I don't think they should.

Keltest
2015-04-02, 06:01 PM
You are missing the key difference.

I tell the Player that they don't have a sword to swing with... but they can still attempt that action, and then they may go along with it for humor or roleplaying or whatever and that their character attempts to draw and swing their blade with a mighty strike... that unfortunately is missing the pointy metal bit they are accustomed to.

You tell the player. "You can't do that. It's not what your character would do."

See our example is trolls and fire. You say "You don't know to use fire, you can't do that."

I let them do what they want.

Now said trolls might not be weak to fire, or might in fact be really weak to fire, but really good at tackling people while dying, or regularly consume gunpowder and nails knowing that the damage they'd take for consuming such things will heal quickly, and the pain is worth destroying the enemies of their clan. Or they might just be trolls.

But I let the player do what they want. I don't tell them they can't do things because I don't think they should.

"Should" does not play into it. If they don't have a sword, they cant swing a sword no matter how much they or their character want to. Period. Its not about what I personally want them to do, its about obeying the understood restrictions of the game.

draken50
2015-04-02, 06:14 PM
"Should" does not play into it. If they don't have a sword, they cant swing a sword no matter how much they or their character want to. Period. Its not about what I personally want them to do, its about obeying the understood restrictions of the game.

I'm sorry, I missed the rule where the game limitation is "Player cannot attack a troll with fire."

Where's that rule? I don't think that's a rule... is it? Is it really? Is that in the game? No?... Oh.. you have to attack a troll with fire or acid to kill it? Hmm... must not be a rule then...

Oh that's right.. You can't attack a troll with fire or acid in your game until YOU say it's okay... that's right. So no it's not an understood restriction of everyone's game... Yours... sure.. it's a houserule. But don't try to claim that it's THE GAME, as THE GAME is not your game, it's not my game. It's what was written in the book.

In my game, you can attack a troll with fire whenever there is a troll and either a source of, or an ability to create fire.

Heck you can even create the troll and create the fire, just to attack the troll with fire.

Keltest
2015-04-02, 06:19 PM
I'm sorry, I missed the rule where the game limitation is "Player cannot attack a troll with fire."

Where's that rule? I don't think that's a rule... is it? Is it really? Is that in the game? No?... Oh.. you have to attack a troll with fire or acid to kill it? Hmm... must not be a rule then...

Oh that's right.. You can't attack a troll with fire or acid in your game until YOU say it's okay... that's right. So no it's not an understood restriction of everyone's game... Yours... sure.. it's a houserule. But don't try to claim that it's THE GAME, as THE GAME is not your game, it's not my game. It's what was written in the book.

In my game, you can attack a troll with fire whenever there is a troll and either a source of, or an ability to create fire.

Heck you can even create the troll and create the fire, just to attack the troll with fire.

Rule 0 says the GM is the ultimate authority on everything. But anyway, I am not saying "You cannot attack the troll with fire." I am saying "Your character has no reason to go for fire, so explain to me why he does."

Red Fel
2015-04-03, 02:23 PM
Rule 0 says the GM is the ultimate authority on everything. But anyway, I am not saying "You cannot attack the troll with fire." I am saying "Your character has no reason to go for fire, so explain to me why he does."

"Because it's there" isn't a reason? Seriously, does weaponized fire even need a reason? It's weaponized fire. The ultimate problem-solver.

I mean, Dorothy didn't know that the Wicked Witch of the East had a rather severe allergy to H2O, but she still went for the water. It's called a happy accident.

Now, if the player happened to be holding a weapon at the time, and hadn't used it yet, and hadn't encountered a troll before, I might think it fair to ask the player, "Why did your PC just drop his perfectly functional weapon and go for that torch?" If, on the other hand, the player had encountered trolls before, or had tried the weapon and it had done bubkes, I would have understood the player's choice. I wouldn't have asked the question, because the answer would be obvious: Because the weapon is not working, and I need to try something new.

But in a situation where there is a torch on hand, and the PC in question either doesn't have or hasn't readied his weapon? I wouldn't be averse to calling it a happy accident. Big scary thing. Wave fire in its face. "Back, beast! Back, I say!" Eh, it works. Let it ride.

Keltest
2015-04-03, 02:29 PM
"Because it's there" isn't a reason? Seriously, does weaponized fire even need a reason? It's weaponized fire. The ultimate problem-solver.

I mean, Dorothy didn't know that the Wicked Witch of the East had a rather severe allergy to H2O, but she still went for the water. It's called a happy accident.

Now, if the player happened to be holding a weapon at the time, and hadn't used it yet, and hadn't encountered a troll before, I might think it fair to ask the player, "Why did your PC just drop his perfectly functional weapon and go for that torch?" If, on the other hand, the player had encountered trolls before, or had tried the weapon and it had done bubkes, I would have understood the player's choice. I wouldn't have asked the question, because the answer would be obvious: Because the weapon is not working, and I need to try something new.

But in a situation where there is a torch on hand, and the PC in question either doesn't have or hasn't readied his weapon? I wouldn't be averse to calling it a happy accident. Big scary thing. Wave fire in its face. "Back, beast! Back, I say!" Eh, it works. Let it ride.

My issue is mostly with the "PC dropping his sword to go for a torch" scenario. Or even just randomly deciding to burn the bodies when they have never done something like that in the past and have no idea that you need to do that for trolls. Heck, id even let them get away with it if they noticed that "Hey, the monster keeps coming back, no matter how finely diced it gets!" Its a reasonable way to at least impede it, if nothing else. But if I cant figure out why they're breaking their patterns of behavior now, im going to ask them to explain themselves.

Agincourt
2015-04-03, 06:18 PM
I'm surprised by the resistance Keltest is getting to what I had thought was a non-controversial proposition: players and character do not have identical sets of knowledge. Maybe I've just been lucky in my gaming groups, but when a DM tells us that do not know a piece of information, we take it with the same grace as if the he told us that we don't know how to cast a particular spell.

NichG
2015-04-03, 08:08 PM
The issue doesn't seem to be so much with that. Players are of course capable of roleplaying that difference in knowledge if they want to. The controversial issue is whether or not the DM should arbitrate the specific nature and consequences of that difference in knowledge.

Once the DM is asked to enforce, the big problem is that the character doesn't actually have thoughts, so its impossible to really know if the character's reasoning process used information that they don't have access to. So what can happen that the DM tries to argue that the player did use OOC information and the player tries to argue that it is plausible to have taken the actions he did even without that information. What tends to follow is a sort of cowboys and indians dynamic of 'I shot you!' 'nope, I dodged!'. You also get annoying things like meta-antigaming: "Have I received enough hints for my character to know that I should try fire yet, or do I just know that the trolls regenerate? I'd better try every single energy type before fire first so I can't be accused of metagaming". Or meta-metagaming: "How can I put my character into a situation where they will learn the thing I already know?"

Since there's the alternative of making a game where there really are just things the players don't know and have to figure out, that has the clear advantages of just sidestepping the issue.

Pex
2015-04-03, 10:05 PM
The problem can be solved with a skill check set at DC not so high why are you pretending you're allowing the roll, in 5E. As I mentioned don't only make it a Knowledge roll so that non-spellcaster characters get to know stuff. A troll could be Knowledge Arcana and/or Knowledge Nature, but a dwarf or half-orc may use Survival to reflect racial familiarity.

3E/Pathfinder specifically do it by the different Knowledge Skills with Pathfinder allowing a somewhat easier time of it in its skill system. Pathfinder sets the DC at 15 + CR. If you make the DC you as a player may ask the DM one question about the monster. Every 5 over the DC you get on the check is another question. If the player really does know all about the monster out of character you can use this metric to determine what the character knows in character the player may use.

Thrudd
2015-04-03, 10:26 PM
I feel it is just preferable not to put the players in that situation too often. No matter how good and cooperative the player is, it is still a bit awkward when you are asking them to pretend they don't know things. It is much easier when they really don't know things, and what they do know, their character can know as well.

Knowledge skills work better as ways to give hints and new info, rather than as a way to instruct the player how they should roleplay (by telling them the character can't act on certain info the player already has).

If your players know how trolls work, then just let that be common knowledge in the setting, or don't use trolls (at least not identifiable ones). Sidestep the whole issue, that way.

SiuiS
2015-04-04, 02:36 AM
I feel it is just preferable not to put the players in that situation too often. No matter how good and cooperative the player is, it is still a bit awkward when you are asking them to pretend they don't know things. It is much easier when they really don't know things, and what they do know, their character can know as well.


this is only true in the antagonistic setup that D&D uses and which people who grew up on D&D assume applies to all games.

In some games, the very fact that your character doesn't know what's going on is half the fun. Allowing for those consequences of imperfect knowledge is fun! Just don't make all things binary, and make some losses more fun and interesting than winning.

goto124
2015-04-04, 04:45 AM
There's also the option of sidestepping the issue entirely, which is designing the game such that any knowledge the players can get their hands on will either 1) not apply to your homebrew setting or 2) not matter much anyway.

Could someone give examples where a player's knowledge (which the character doesn't possess) ruins the enjoyment of the other players? And in those examples, isn't it less of metagaming and more of the player being a jerk?

Also, related to the trolls and fire situation we've been talking about: why is it so important that the PCs don't use the players' tactical/game/world knowledge? Such knowledge tends to be embedded deep into experienced players' minds, and if I'm told 'how did you know to use fire' kind of questions constantly just because I know the system in and out, I'll be flipping the table. For the trolls and fire, the players will have to waste time/turns/HP from taking damage just pretending to not know what the trolls are vulnerable to. Really...?

SiuiS
2015-04-05, 03:01 AM
Perspective.

You're looking at a game where the goal is to numerically triumph repeatedly over challenges that present mathematical difficulties using applications of a combination of descriptor tag and mathematics (such as "fire, 1d6/level (currently 8d6), prevents enemy from recovering this amount").

From the perspective of dramatic narration, where the story of how these humans interface with each other and adapt to a life of hardship on the road, meeting challenges with steel and wits and having to explore when to use force and what kind of force to use...

Simply defaulting to "i burn him and he can't recover. Challenge over." Is bypassing the fun to try and get to some other, different fun.


I have a player like this right now actually. One party mate is critically injured, and they're stuck in a corrugated steel shed in a scrapyard as their FOB in a zombie apocalypse scenario. I've told them all point blank that the interpersonal drama of friction and tempers in a tight space is the point of this game, not rolling dice to kill zombies, and if that wasn't fun then this wasn't the game for them.

This one player still continues to insist on getting into fights, rushing past deacriptions, conversations, narrative drama, so he can roll dice against zombies. That's just how he sees role playing games. It's not bad – I certainly have my own interest in that sort of thing – but damn if it isn't actively killing everyone else's enjoyment.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-07, 12:00 PM
I have had people unconsciously metagame before without really realizing theyre doing it. Most commonly its when theyre trying recommend another course of action to another player who's character could not actually communicate with them. If I point out that "XXX's character cant hear you" they'll go "Oh, yeah, oops." and then proceed to talk to the other player anyway, because its a game after all.

Point taken.

---


What I'm saying is that whether they are 'playing a game' or 'roleplaying' or whatever from the point of view of formal definitions is irrelevant.

Ever heard a saying about a finger pointing at the moon?

The definition refers to actual actions taken by the players. You might as well be arguing actions are irrelevant, as long as they're enjoyable.

You also missed my point. You were arguing I'm being too strict. Show me an RPG that does not pass my definition and then do that again.


If they still achieve that enjoyment but what causes it turns out to not have been an RPG by some formal definition, then so what?

Because if what they're actually doing is karate instead of RPGs, they're on the wrong subforum and might not find any of the advice particularly helpful.

Finger. Moon.


I'm objecting to the assumption that 'counting as an RPG' is intrinsically valuable, because it excludes the possibility of optimizing the experience even further and finding a game that everyone will enjoy more at the cost of it not technically counting as an RPG from the point of view of some or other formal definition.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. Let me correct my mistake and restate the argument with extraneous words removed:

The underlying assumption here is that there is something everyone at the table could enjoy.

You are completely correct in that a game exists for the sake of the players. But the players function as a group within context of the rules, and what's beneficial to a group is occasionally at odds what's beneficial to an invidual. (As a sidenote, this has nothing whatsoever to do with RPGs being particularly non-competitive. Purely competitive games and sports have their own restrictions on gathering and using metagame resources in order to maintain fair play.) And we know that punishing the invidual can make a group function better, even if the act of punishment only incurs costs to the punisher. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a.html) There will be times when following the rules is not enjoyable to the player and enforcing the rules is not enjoyable to the GM, but when the GM's failure to enforce the rules would only serve to undermine group cohesion and lead to net decrease in group enjoyment.

NichG
2015-04-07, 12:36 PM
Ever heard a saying about a finger pointing at the moon?

The definition refers to actual actions taken by the players. You might as well be arguing actions are irrelevant, as long as they're enjoyable.

You also missed my point. You were arguing I'm being too strict. Show me an RPG that does not pass my definition and then do that again.

Games run at a number of real tables where metagaming certain things is permitted or encouraged. Many of these are just going to be house rules and are hard to examine in the context of the forum, but that doesn't make them any less relevant - if anything, it makes those examples more relevant than abstract cases that don't actually impact people in practice.

But if you want an actual published system that has mechanics or rules that violate your definition, there are a number of agency-sharing games which explicitly grant specific abilities to make decisions on behalf of the world based on what the players, OOC, would like to happen. Adventure! for example has a dramatic editing subsystem that is fed off of the same point pool as is used to activate explicitly in-character abilities. The Firefly RPG has a similar system, as do quite a few other games. Those are fairly standard approaches, but you can find even more esoteric things out there which mess with the concepts of who is actually making what decisions.

Now, you can argue 'the character still matters' in those cases. That's fine. But those are examples where, explicitly, the character doesn't always matter more than the player.



Because if what they're actually doing is karate instead of RPGs, they're on the wrong subforum and might not find any of the advice particularly helpful.

Finger. Moon.


On the contrary, there's still a wealth of gaming experience accessible here in the form of all of the posters who discuss things. Even if you don't consider what they're doing an RPG, that doesn't mean that they can't have a productive conversation with someone else who draws the line at a different place. The definition approach excludes things that have incomplete matches, but there is also the inclusive approach where you say 'what do these things have in common?' rather than 'does this count or not?'. We've had questions about dice distributions and what they feel like, questions about social dynamics at gaming tables, ideas for cool scenarios or environments, sources of inspiration from literature or cool images, all sorts of stuff. Whether or not the group is technically obeying a particular definition of RPGs is usually not going to be the most important factor in those specific discussions.


You're focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. Let me correct my mistake and restate the argument with extraneous words removed:

You are completely correct in that a game exists for the sake of the players. But the players function as a group within context of the rules, and what's beneficial to a group is occasionally at odds what's beneficial to an invidual. (As a sidenote, this has nothing whatsoever to do with RPGs being particularly non-competitive. Purely competitive games and sports have their own restrictions on gathering and using metagame resources in order to maintain fair play.) And we know that punishing the invidual can make a group function better, even if the act of punishment only incurs costs to the punisher. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a.html) There will be times when following the rules is not enjoyable to the player and enforcing the rules is not enjoyable to the GM, but when the GM's failure to enforce the rules would only serve to undermine group cohesion and lead to net decrease in group enjoyment.

The question becomes, which rules are the rules that benefit the group? A set of rules that makes the group as a whole enjoy the experience less than they could otherwise is counterproductive. The rules in the sense of formal definitions, specific rules as written, etc are useful inasmuch as they get you to a ballpark of where the group can find mutual enjoyment. But they are not themselves the purpose - its the group's enjoyment that is the purpose, and any rule or definition you want to bring to bear is just a tool to try to bring that about.

A GM who actively tries to optimize the group's enjoyment rather than just trying to optimize adherence to the rules is potentially able to reach a higher level of 'net group enjoyment' because by your own argument there will also be times when following the rules conflicts with that 'net group enjoyment'.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-07, 04:35 PM
The question becomes, which rules are the rules that benefit the group?
...
A GM who actively tries to optimize the group's enjoyment rather than just trying to optimize adherence to the rules is potentially able to reach a higher level of 'net group enjoyment' because by your own argument there will also be times when following the rules conflicts with that 'net group enjoyment'.

Utilitarianism! Excitement!

Sorry.

I think the easiest way to do this is to incorporate the players into the ruling process. If you ask the players whether or not a particular set of rule or practices is working for them, you'll probably get honest opinions. You can use your own judgement to ignore suggestions of "my katana should do more damage."

The other result will be that the players will feel more invested in following rules/norms that they helped set.

Amphetryon
2015-04-09, 07:39 AM
Utilitarianism! Excitement!

Sorry.

I think the easiest way to do this is to incorporate the players into the ruling process. If you ask the players whether or not a particular set of rule or practices is working for them, you'll probably get honest opinions. You can use your own judgement to ignore suggestions of "my katana should do more damage."

The other result will be that the players will feel more invested in following rules/norms that they helped set.

Thus it comes full circle. The way to deal with metagaming is to metagame more.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-09, 04:26 PM
Thus it comes full circle. The way to deal with metagaming is to metagame more.

There's a political joke or three that I want to make, but I won't make them because forum rules.

But they're funny. Trust me.