pachristian's page

Okey dokey, I think I'm wrapping my mind around the majority of the game and the feel. I think I'll try to get a session started soon. My interest is really piqued and I like the old-school feel even though I never played it before.

Is there anything special I should know about DMing? I really have no idea how to work XP. It seemed really confusing like with gold = XP and adjusted for LVL and junk.

I can’t resist this one!

At Origins ’78, I had the pleasure of talking to Gary Gygax about some of the rules for D&D. Among other things, I asked him about the “Gold = Experience” rules, which I found quite confusing.

Mr. Gygax explained that his original idea was that your character’s advancement in level was not just an advancement in personal ability, but also in social status, holdings, feudal responsibilities, and so on. “Gold = Experience” did not mean that if you had a fat wallet, your character was more powerful. This ‘experience’ that came from gold represented your character’s social, political, and economic station. Mr. Gygax was clear that the gold that became ‘experience points’ was out of circulation: You couldn’t go to the local magic shop and buy a +2 Flaming Sword with it; that gold was invested in your career path. (He was opposed to magic shops and ever buying magic items, for that matter!).

Understanding levels in this context makes rules like a fighter gaining a stronghold keep and followers at 9th level make more sense: Level is not just your personal can of wup-a**; it was how your character fit into the world as a whole. Sadly, none of this was really explained in the game rules.

I advise you to ignore “gold/XP”; most of us did.

Oh, and Marshall Jansen is right about the “B” modules. Pick up Temple of Elemental Evil, and start the players with the village of Homlett.

B2: Keep on the Borderlands should do the trick. This is probably the most-played adventure of all time: It was included in the Red Box "basic set", and was intended as an introductory adventure for both players and GMs.

The most important thing to remember is that the rules don't cover every situation; it's up to the GM to make judgement calls (all the time).

Wizards of the Coast updated the Tomb of Horrors to 3.5; What I remember most was the writer's comment that many of the events in that dungeon required "spot rules" in the original module; but were covered by standard rules in D&D 3.0+.

Congratulations! Now you understand WHY the games evolved.

Honestly, back in 1976, we were all pretty confused too. That’s why there were so many house rules. AD&D was written by hobbyists, not professional writers, and it shows. There are a lot of contradictory rules, a lot of assumptions, and a lot of rules are buried in strange places in the rulebooks.

Not that this helps – but when you look at D&D OGL (3.0, 3.5, etc.) you can see how far the hobby came in less than 25 years.

I suggest you check out some of the lower-numbered “B” series adventures (available as .pdf’s from drivethrustuff.com, or via Wizard’s online store); especially modules 1 & 2 were designed to help you learn to play and GM.

Well I guess my next question is this: is cleave worth it? i am playing a thd Great axe warrior and my original plan was to walk up then vital strike+cleave. or get surrounded and cleave my way out of the situation. this is my first real THD build so I am very new to the tactics of just a +1 impacting speed great axe.

Speaking as a mid-level greatsword fighter, Cleave is totally worth it. My GM regularly uses hoards of low hit-die creatures, and with Great Cleave, and decent luck with the initiative dice, I can take out five or six per round; often before they get to swing at me.

I'd be inclinded to give bonuses, called "Level Bonuses" at as characters level up. These level bonuses would not stack with magic item bonuses. So a fighter might get (for example) a +1 level bonus with a particular type of weapon every 4 levels. An 8th level fighter wielding a +2 sword would not stack the sword's +2 with his level bonus +2; so a +2 sword would not give him any advantage, expect for being 'magic'.

I like to start players out with a rogue(although I always sound them out, first).

The rogue's large number, and variety, of skills mean that they always have something to do in the game; that means the player gets to do a lot, and usually comes away with a good feeling about the game.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

To me "old school" is not about the rules set, but about the game play.

+1.

I started in 1975... That's about as old school as you can get.

Old school is not about a set of rules - the Pathfinder rules can be as old school or new school as you like. It's about attitude.

#1: There aren't rules for everything. A lot of old school gaming encounters were resolved on GM's whim. When you don't have rules for how to disarm traps, or bluff a monster, you have to role-play it out. The lack of rules was frustrating ("The giant kills you because {you} took the last coke, and I wanted it." - really happened), but it also forced creativity and role play. You can recapture this by not allowing the players to "just" roll the dice ("I don't care what you rolled on your seduction role; if you want to impress this girl, talk to her, tell me what you say." or "Your rogue can't reach the trap mechanism to disarm it. You'll have to come up with a way to disarm it that does not involve a 'disarm' roll.")

#2: Don't take advancement for granted. Pathfinder, and most modern gamers, are built on an assumption of appropriate level encounters, and appropriate level equipment. They became that way because players and GMS like it that way. Making level in an old school game was a big deal, because it was so easy to die on the way.

#3: Bad Stuff Happens. In 'old school' games, character death - even of high level characters - happened and was usually permanent. Level drains from undead were not 'negative levels'; your character permanently lost levels (and experience points!), and suddenly your 5th level fighter was 1st level again, and you had to start all over.

#4: Do Not Balance Everything. Instead of appropriate level encounters, the players had to figure out, in the game, whether not not an encounter was something they should take on, or avoid. Many classic adventures provided details of possible encounters that were completely inappropriate for your players. The characters were expected to figure out who to avoid, and when to use tactics.
A classic Gygax trick was a monster that could only be defeated by a certain weapon - which was in the hoard it was guarding. You had to figure out how to get past the monster, steal the correct item, then fight it.
In addition, mixed-level parties were the norm, not the exception. If your 1st level fighter is in a party of mostly 5th and 6th level characters, you just learned when to keep your head down, and when to jump in. You'd make level soon enough, if you had good judgement and were lucky. If you were the 8th level character in a party of 3rd through 5th's, you learned to take the brunt of the damage, and not to be a jerk (otherwise, they'd ditch you at the next inappropriate encounter and let you die).

Some suggestions for old school material:

A) A lot of classic Judge's Guild material is readily available through online dealers (drivethrustuff.com).

B) Goodman Games converted several Judge's Guild modules to D&D 3.x. Check them out.

C) Wizards of the Coast archives includes a couple of classic dungeons converted to 3.x (White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors, etc.). Check those out.

D) Read some of the literature that the 'old school' games were based on: Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson (source of the D&D Troll, the Paladin class, and the Law-vs.Chaos alignment), Dying Earth by Jack Vance, Swords series by Fritz Leiber (source of the Thief/Rogue class), Elric of Melnibone by Michael Moorcock (expanded the alignment system, and inspired more magic swords than anyone's business), Quag Keep by Andre Norton; this novel was literally based on early D&D adventures, and yes, they often played just like this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not a matter of power gaming. He's on a dominance trip: He's trying to prove that he's in charge, not you.

Have you tried reverse psychology?

I've done this (and it worked):

Get agreement from the other players: Tell him that his character is the party leader, and the focus of the campaign. IF he dies, or wrecks a scenario, the campaign ends. He is not awarded experience points: Instead he gets EP's equal to a percentage of the EP's that other players earn with his help. If you have 3 other players, make it 35%, 4 other players, 25%+

2 people marked this as a favorite.

38. "The Prisoner" of Golorion
- "You are number 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10"

The entire adventure path only requires one village map.

Although I'd like to play in #6.

Humans and humanoids with class levels. Preferably ones that come with a social order.

Ever see the faces of a group of player characters who have just discovered that the orc warband they defeated last week has sent the whole tribe against them?

Check out the race building rules in the Advanced Races Guide.

As for class and abilities - how will he fit into the campaign? What are the other players playing? What is the GM running?

I know this is a discussion of game mechanics, but my belief is that a character's "uselessness" is based on the player controlling him (or her). Your optimized, campaign-perfect, well-equipped super-character with the awesome backstory, and completely appropriate equipment is still useless in the hands of a whiner who wanted to play something different, and who chooses to play stupidly or selfishly.

We've all seen them: The wizard who wants to charge into melee. The fighter who insists on sneaking and looking for traps, the rogue who whines because the GM "won't let him play his character (when he wants to mug the party's patron for the next stage of the adventure).

So to my mind there is no "worst 20th level character possible" only a "worst way to play a given character".

A houserule I like:

Females get -2 Str and Con, but +2 Int and Cha (in addition to their normal racial ability score adjustments).

Made to encourage the trope that females are mostly archers, rogues or spellcasters.

I've got not problem with gender differences, but as David Kenzer said regarding the Hackmaster rules, making a rule for it causes more fights and arguments than it's worth.

Roleplay to Respec: Any permanent character decisions, including feats, level/class selection, skill apportionment, etc. can by changed at any time. The character must express frustration with the choice in-game (or via email if appropriate) and resolve to try a different approach. The change may include some in-game actions, such as seeking out a new weapon to use.

+1

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Favorite House Rule:
If the players start to bicker among themselves, the adventure is not dangerous enough. All monsters are bumped up by +2 CR.

Oh yes -
And the second list of "all the special powers that I honestly earned playing this character under 'my other GM'".
Naturally, this 'other GM' has recently moved to another city and "I don't know his address or phone number". When you ask for a name you are told "you don't know him".
I wish I was not speaking from experience.
Twice.

You forgot to add the (thick) three-ring binder containing "all of his magic items and artifacts".

2 people marked this as a favorite.

260: This dungeon isn't so dangerous. I promise you will all walk out of here.

261: Of course my boyfriend will be back. His heart is mine forever.

Michael Radagast wrote:

Ahaha - thank you very much, Master Schneider! That's precisely the line of thought I was looking for.

Incidentally, the meta answer is the reason I was looking for the in-world. I want to run the damn cool dungeon. xP

Live to serve. ;)

Hope you guys have a blast!

Played it a few months ago. Had a blast! Great dungeon.

I'd like to see a "pocket" edition of the core rules. Minimal artwork, no fluff, just the rules as we need them. It would supplement the core rulebook, and be a lot handier on the gaming table than the coffee-table monster.

And after the spankings comes the oral sex!

Anyway, I can't believe I missed this thread the first time. Is anyone else floored by Mr. Erwin? He had me at "Post-Vulgate!"

I recently read T.H. White's The Once and Future King, which I found to be amazing and was hoping to read Malory by the end of the summer. Anyone have any alternative King Arhur-themed book, either old school or new, they'd strongly suggest?
--

Thanks in advance!

How about these:

Mary Stewart's "Merlin Trilogy": The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills, The Last Enchantment, and The Wicked Day. (yes, four books)
Tells the Athurian legend using a realistic historical setting, with some magic from Merlin and others, minimum preaching. An excellent read.

John Steinbeck's "Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights". Steinbeck's last book. He was translating Mallory into modern english, but unfortunately died before he finished the book. Contains some modern interpretations, but still outstanding work.

Inca mummies were, I believe, freeze-dried. That is, they were made on mountaintops, where the body froze, but in such a way that the moisure was drawn out. Somebody more up to date on Incas correct me....

You also should consider what condition the pyramids are in. We see them now in a lesser state than they would have been new.

I forgot about that! Herotodus saw the pyramids in ~450 BC, and he felt that the giant temple complex around them (which may have actually covered a square mile!) was every bit as impressive as the pyramids themselves.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a cool idea.
How culturally accurate do you care about being?
Egyptian culture evolved as it did in response to several conditions:
1) A very reliable climate - seasons and weather highly predictable.
2) Wealth of natural resources - including extremely rich farmland, and resources of gold, precious stones, and so on.
3) Relative geographic isolation - it was difficult to invade Egypt.
4) Reliable transportation - "Civilized Egypt" was a line along the Nile, never more than a couple of miles wide. The Nile was, and is, a stable, highly boatable river. As a result, it was easy to move people, armies, and goods (say, heavy blocks for building a pyramid) around.
5) Strong central government - when they didn't have that, they did not build giant monuments.
6) Longevity of civilization - combined with the above effects, the culture survived thousands of years with (compared to the rest of the world) little change. My current campaign is set in the bronze age, at the height of the rule of Pharaoh Ramses II; about 1200 BC. Ramses is a member of the 19th(!) dynasty to rule Egypt. The great Pyramids were built more than 1200 years before his time, and even the Egyptians regard them as semi-mythical. The last pyramid built was built over 600 years before game time.

Your proposed catfolk civilization certainly has the potential: Give them a strong religious/military government. A climate like the eastern USA is possible: Just look at the mound builders of the Missippi valley. If they'd had more stone and metal to work it with, they might have eventually evolved into a pyramid building culture. (*might* I said, for you anthropological purists, *might*)

You might pull in an element of ancestor worship, where a revered ancestor is preserved as an undead, so that their wisdom is not lost to the future generations. A culture that regards undead status as something for the elite few, instead as something to be horrified of, is certainly possible.

Just PLEASE don't put in twinkly vampires......

In our group, most of the players use a spiral notebook for their character sheet. The 'official' character sheet is pasted in the book. Game notes and character's diaries fill pages (along with maps, references to NPC's, and so on). When a character levels, we paste a new character sheet in.

Some of the younger players have not chosen to keep a notebook yet, but they rely on the rest of us to remind them of names, clues, and so on. And they're learning fast. (Our GM expects us to remember stuff from previous games.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Players respond to tough challenges one of three ways:
1) Macho act: "We can beat it because we're PC's!" Run in with no strategy and attack. Often caused by a single player.
2) Whine: "Killer GM, he hates us!" Usually the effect of #1 not working. Sometimes results in players quitting game.
3) Brains: "We're not tough enough for this guy yet. Let's complete side quest #86 to stock up some XP and Magic before we go after him." Only occurs with mature players who do not have ego issues. Very rare.

You can only induce tension and excitement if the players let you.

One technique is to introduce some level-equivelent NPC's, who team up with the party a few times (one at a time) and establish friendships with the party and each other. The NPCs then form their own adventuring team. Every game year or so, they get together and party with the PC's, sharing adventure stories about the past year. Once the players see these NPC's as friends and equals (or as rivals and equals), then have the boss encounter wipe out the NPC party. The PC are asked to avenge their friends. This *should* be sufficient warning to the PC's that the boss encounter is above their level, and they will need careful strategy and proper equipment to win. Admittedly, this is a long-term set up, but it does fulfill the requirements you've laid out.

Beware of #1.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Worst spells for a sorcerer?

Any spell where the GM and player will argue over what it does.

This post has officially scared me away from investing into this game. Who has this kind of time with kids, career and other responsibilities?!

It was having job and kids that got my wife to start running adventure path adventures. Having the adventure path laid out meant that she did not have to put extra hours of work in to create the world and the adventures. By using adventure paths, she could be sure that there would be a 'next week session', no matter how long we played. We did Rise of the Runelords, and are now working on Carrion Crown. And yes, with various obligations, it looks like about 18 months to two years is how long it takes us to finish a campaign.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you

And let's be fair to the game system: Number of arrows normally needed to kill man: one. Number of crossbow bolts to kill Richard I (considered the best knight in England): one. Check out information on Howard Hill - killed an Elephant with just one arrow.

Killing a normal 5th level fighter in Pathfinder takes 10-12 arrows... A PC 'optimized' as a fighter will probably take twice that.

Unless you are a stickler for encumbrance then, it is only fair to ignore the bulk of the arrows, and allow every archer to carry an "unrealistic" number of shots.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

An English Longbowman carried "four-and-twenty" in a quiver. This was enough to last about two or three attacks - about 4 minutes of steady shooting. If the king had been generous when funding his war, additional quivers were provided, and delivered on the battlefield by serfs. Henry V stocked his army with (if I remember correctly) 200 arrows per archer.

Mongols carried 80 arrows per man: two large quivers attached the horse's saddlebags. I don't know what their foot troops carried.

Arrows cannot just be 'bunched' together. An arrow's straight flight depends on the feathers (fletching) being in perfect condition, and the shaft being perfectly straight. This is not a problem for short flights (less than maybe 30 ft); you can fire a featherless arrow and be reasonably sure of hitting your target. Start getting to a decent range (100 ft plus), and one feather just slightly off destroys your chance to hit.

and Trust me on this: You do not want to try to draw a bow with a backpack on your shoulders. It hurts, and you will miss.

Fishing arrows don't use fletching(short range). Native Americans generally did not use feathers - they relied on short range shooting.

I stick to a 24-arrow quiver, and allow an archer to recover 1/3 of the fired arrows without a problem, and another 1/3 can be recovered and repaired during the evening rest period. I allow a saddlebag quiver to hold up to 50 arrows.

Can't answer your last question, but consider reading a couple of books:

1) Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson.
This is the book that the paladin class is based on (also the D&D troll, but that's another story). Outstanding read, although written in 1961, and so may offend some readers with its lack of political correctness.

2) The Threat from the Sea (trilogy), by Mel Odom
Odom writes paladins better than any other gaming writer. His paladins are good, but not self-riteous, honorable, but not stuffy. The central character in this trilogy is a future paladin, and Odom examines his life philosophy, and how it applies to the world and the people around him. A good set of novels too.

Make sure the wizards are screened; players should not be able to reach them easily. Give the wizards a chance to set up defensive spells before they engage PC's.

Well, I just sold my wife, daughter, and daughter's gaming group on Pathfinder (they were using 3.5).

So - YES!

Anyone who builds a stronghold in a world where scry exists is going to sandwich lead into the walls/floor/ceiling of at least the important rooms where he/she spends his/her time. If they don/t have the foresight to do that they deserved to be scry'd and fry'd.

+1

As a GM you have to remember that the current batch of player-characters are not the only high level characters who have ever existed. So, yes, the evil overlord's castle is lead-sheeted. And yes, the Frost Giant Jarl has his tribal cleric cast Immunity to Fire on him every day.

But is a lot more work for the GM.

I'd go with Paladin, and make a request to the GM that he/she make sure that a wand of cure light is in an early treasure.

Or arrange for the party to pool their money from the first adventure or two and buy a wand of cure light (my last group always did that).

I did like a comment by Michael Moorcock: He argued that the science fiction/fantasy field had become incestuous; writers were largely reading other science fiction/fantasy, and all the books were starting to look alike. His recommended solution was to read other forms of fiction, and non-fiction, to broaden one's horizons.

But never stop reading.

Incidentally, I've run games set in magical worlds, with gunpowder, for years. How many of you play Warhammer?

I've never found it particularly disruptive. To save space, by grossly simplifying: Pistols are about as effective as crossbows, muskets slightly more so. Both have a high misfire rate (historically, a 15% misfire rate on a flintlock is not unusual). The biggest problem is the noise. Especially in a dungeon; characters go temporarily deaf, loose night vision, and the tunnel quickly fills with smoke. The players learned to rely on swords, thrown weapons, and bows or crossbows in dungeons. They also learned that a "Heat Metal" spell - or any sort of fire or lightning orb was NOT their friend. On the other hand, you can Quick-draw a loaded pistol.

How about fireworks?

Tolkien has fireworks (and a bomb for blowing a hole in the wall of Helm's Deep). But nobody ever argues that there isn't any heroism in Middle-Earth because there are explosives. Nor are explosives a significant part of the story.

Hand "gonnes" were in use in the 1200's. But guns did not become the military standard until the 1600's. Swords, pikes, and cavalry charges went out of use in the late 1700's and early 1800's - and remained in use outside of Europe until the 1900's.

500 years of development? It comes down to the flavor you want in the world. But never assume that gunpowder is a superweapon.

So how many fireballs equals one barral of gunpowder?

How will this varient affect monsters?

First and foremost, a player is responsible for helping his fellow players - including the GM - have fun.

Not knowing the basic rules, or bogging down scenes because a player does not know their character's capabilities is irresponsible at best, and D*D annoying at worst.

Eating a dragon heart gave Siegfried the ability to understand birds - I believe there is another Germanic myth where it conveys the ability to understand all languages. Bathing in dragon blood made Siegfried invulnerable (natural skin armor? acts likes Bracers of Armor perhaps?).

As for the Valkyries, I don't know that angels are a good comparison. Valkyries are the bar-wenches of Valhalla, but they have names like Rota ("sleet and storm"), and are sometimes referred to as the Death-maidens. I like using an Eryines ("Fury") for Valkyrie stats.

My group also only meets twice a month.

All of my players on are Facebook. I created a Facebook group for the game. After every session I post a game summary, including experience awards, key NPC's dealt with, and any related commentary.

Other threads include uploaded maps, character portraits, etc.

Players are encouraged to add comments. They also post game fiction (lots of wannabe writers in this group), and hold character discussions via the group.

It works.

Considering what passes for entertainment today, I would think it just polite for a player to learn at least the basics, preferably the nuances of his class and race as well, and gain a fundamental understanding.

If you flip the argument; is it OK for someone to bog down and ruin three-five other people's gaming night just because you're a lazy/selfish douche that can't set aside an hour to study what you're getting into? If someone were to have someone over for poker nights, you bloody well expect they know the game, unless you're playing for money that is. I don't see why RPGs should be so different than other past-times.

+1

+1
+1

Your player is a cheater. Anyone who knows the rules as well as you indicate knows exactly why it's important to declare the path of travel.

+1

If it was just the map thing, then there would be room for doubt. But rules lawyering, and 'creatively interpreting' rules to his benefit? He knows exactly what he's doing:

He's cheating, in a way that you cannot put your finger on any specific action and say "this was where you cheated". It sounds like you have already tried to be reasonable and get him to play along with the group. Tell the other players you'll be happy to start GM'ing again - but not for him.

This has been done, but I'd like to see your take on it:

A team of adventurers of dubious charisma, who have an NPC "hero" as their front man. He gets the glory (and the blame) and they get the cash.

A 'hero' with the looks and reputation of a mighty warrior; actually he's a mind-controlling spellcaster who manipulates parties of adventurers into having his adventures for him, and then 'rewriting' the adventures. (Hey, maybe the reason the barbarian is running around in a loincloth is because he's an arcane caster - anyone ever think of that?

A bard who whose 'performance' is giving motivational speeches.

A paladin in black leather, with the evil goatee and look, whom everyone just assumes is a villain.

The leader of a pacifist "Orc and Goblin Rights" organization, protesting blatant stereotypes and discrimination.

... I still liked your gnoll sage...

Here's a couple more:

PCs have to fight mirror images of themselves at some point.
Every good NPC is played against type. The drow are good, the orcs are genius librarians, and every guard captain/bodybuilder/berserker/person in a visored helm is female. Even when it becomes apparent that this is a running theme, treat each new NPC introduction as if your players should be surprised and the role reversals are "edgy".

+1

Selgard wrote:

If they are happy wallowing in their ignorance- then let them.

Really? No one could just be busy and not want to waste what little free time they have learning all the rules? Are we really that anti-casual gamer? Is it any wonder we scare neophytes away and lament the lack of GMs.

And while we're at it, let's all cheer for the stress-relieving time that happens EVERY game session while the GM explains to the player, again, how to add the party buff and situational modifiers to their dice.

Every time they role the dice.

After all, there's nothing like watching your other players break out magazines and cell phones in the middle of combat because player *X* has - again - not bothered to learn the rules - that you explained to him last combat round. And the one before that. And player *X* is sitting there waiting for you to explain - again - how to add up these numbers.

Yes. This is from a real campaign. No. He doesn't play with us anymore.

There was so little published material initially (this got rectified very quickly) that we were all scrambling to figure out what a 'dungeon' should look like. Experience points were calculated on complex formulas and there was little for the GM to go on to show what was an appropriate encounter. There were, initially, three character classes - fighters who fought, wizards who cast spells, and clerics who did a little of each. If your character reached 10th level, you retired - but very few reached that level. Then Greyhawk came out, and introduced the thief, and took levels up to 20. Finally Blackmoor came out, and we had an example dungeon to base adventures on.

The hobby exploded: New games and ideas were coming out on an almost weekly basis. Most of them copied each other heavily, and ripped off Lord of the Rings. Production values stank, but nobody minded (this was pre-desktop publishing - these books were done on typewriters). One thing that many of these early games had in common was a lack of coherent underlying rules or game logic. This meant that virtually any encounter more complex than 'a 10x10 room with an orc guarding a treasure chest' required a lot of adjudication by the GM.

Since none of us had computers, all gamers and GMs had big, thick, notebooks and binders full of monsters, characters, ideas, that game that 'we were going to publish someday', and house rules, lots and lots of house rules.

TSR raised the production bar with their hardcover D&D rulebooks, with quality artwork, and more support for the GM. Chaosium introduced no-bookkeeping games with coherent rules in the form of Runequest. You never knew how your wallet was going to be hit next.

Eventually, the games slid out of the hands of the hard core, and started welcoming new and more normal people into the hobby. Female gamers stopped being as rare as hen's teeth. But that's a story for the '90's.

I think it's less of a line than a fuzzy area.

The first question should always be: Does it contribute to everyone enjoying the game or not?

A GM should not force player actions, unless the player is clearly, and blatantly abusing player knowledge. Even then, a soft approach should be taken: "How does your INT 7 barbarian know to look for an almondy-smelling film on the inside of the glass?" "How does your first level temptress know about Stygian Chariot tactics?" Such questions slow the game down, but they get the point across without raising too many hackles. They also sometimes lead to truly creative (and rationalized) backstory additions, which can be used later.

I've generally found that players called on inappropriate metagaming ("No, your 17th century buccaneer captain does not know how to build a faraday cage") will back down. The exception being players who are trying to 'beat' the GM.

Metagaming is particularly a problem with experienced players playing beginning characters in a familiar setting ("No, your character doesn't know his alignment. You only know his reputation as a noble and chivalrous knight."). Oddly, not metagaming can be a problem when players are starting out mid or high level characters in an unfamiliar setting. ("Your 6th level wizard would probably know that if your opponent can cast the same spell that many times, they are probably a sorcerer, or are using a wand. You can also guess that they are higher level than you.").

Don't forget the occasional need to metagame for players who don't read the rules, or pay attention to what is going on around them. ("Look, he's wearing full armor and is casting spells. That means he's probably a cleric. So if you drive the skeletons towards him, what do you think he will do?")

A common form of metagaming is knowledge of levels and abilities ("It's an Ogre Mage, so quick, Ajasa, cast "Protection from Cold"). This is particularly a problem if the GM does not provide clues regarding what abilities are present. Consider the following flavor text:
"The zombies shuffle towards you, blood and intestines dripping from their jaws and splattered on their hands and bodies.
(clue: these zombies eat people, grabbing them and biting them)
Several of them have arrows protruding from their bodies, which doesn't seem to bother them at all. One has a loose arm, flailing around as if it was broken, but the hand still grabs and clutches.
(clue: piercing weapons don't work, smashing weapons don't work very well)
Behind them you can see what is left of the town guard; they only got one zombie, you can see its hacked-off limbs still twitching on the ground."
(clue: these zombies are tough, but hacking weapons take them apart).

The players now have an excuse to know that they need to use slashing and hacking weapons on the zombies. The original Star Trek used this technique quite often, killing off a red-shirted NPC so the players (i.e. main characters) would know how the monster worked, and quite often, get a clue as to its weakness.

In many ways it comes down to the nature of the game: Are the players metagaming to 'beat the GM'? (a futile, but strangely popular, exercise), or are they metagaming because they're thinking of their characters as themselves (see 'faraday cage' example above)? Or are they metagaming to make the story flow (example from a previous post of the barbarian suddenly arriving on the scene of action).

pachristian wrote:

I believe there is a wide gap between "optimal" and "useless".

So we are agreed! Anything done 'too much' is a problem. Or, "Disruptive player is disruptive"

I believe there is another dynamic in here as well which causes trouble. When you have two or more people, who are both within that gap you reference, but in opposite sides of it.

I don't think we're allowed to agree. The gods of causuality are probably stalking us both now.... Let's find some trivial, off-topic point to flame each other about, and burden this thread with useless commentary. That should save us. (That's why people do it, right?)

But yeah, the group dynamic is important as well. Especially how the characters relate to each other.

And a disruptive player will find a way to be disruptive - no matter what he/she is playing!