I guess I have been having questions about what is and isn't metagaming as it seems to be a subjective topic and probably shouldn't be.
Background: I played with a group throughout college, had a blast. Moved away, didn't play for years. Now (6 years later) we all get together twice a year to game. There are NINE of us (too many, but hey were friends)Five of them still live in the same town and also game every week.
Problem: I guess the time away kind of pushed a reset button for me. It allowed me to come back into things with an outsiders perspective. I started looking at things that have been done, and wondering if they are legit or better yet, reasonable. Some things may work within rules, but still seem a little silly.
Examples.
Please tell me Meta or not for each of the below:
a. I watched one player move two other players miniatures into strategically better positions without their notice.
b. They will call out spells that their characters are about to cast. So Bob the Barbarian runs up, Sam the Sorcerer will say OOC Hey man I am about to hit that square with a fireball. Bob moves. I say, isn't that metagaming? Sam the sorcerer says, " Ok then in character I call out that I am about to fireball and so move." Well to me that means that 1. the move should count, and 2. both characters have an innate ability to visualize the field of battle, have perfect perception of measurement and be able to use said perception to determine the exact boundaries of said fireball and thus avoid it. (Does this happen to others) I understand a character can call FIREBALL. But I don't think we should be given dimensions of location beforehand, even if the character said, "Centered on Mr. Dark Cleric Guy" My character might have issue judging 30 feet from that location. Thoughts?
c. One guy, who really is good at tactics, ALMOST ALWAYS points out to others a better spot or location strategically for them to be in. This one just bugs me. If argued, he would say that the characters increased intelligence means we can pool our minds together and still not come up with what the character knows to do. A good argument, still, others don't want the advice anyway, and he practically controls 2 - 3 characters per combat through simple suggestion.
d. They use what they know about GM'ing style of each one of then to make decisions on risk/cost analysis all the time.
e. How about when someone says, "I will hit you w/ a fireball if you are there." and the rogue's player responds that he has ridiculous evasion and will be fine. Now it can be argued that the character has seen this before so its not metagame. Maybe this is just risk analysis. Thoughts.
Now these types of things and more bug three of us. However, 5 of them play together weekly and this is their norm. How does one handle breaking that?
(We share a GM'ing job. Each time we meet, we have a new GM. When I GM, the poop may hit the fan!!! muhahahahahha...cough cough...)
|
I guess I have been having questions about what is and isn't metagaming as it seems to be a subjective topic and probably shouldn't be.
Background: I played with a group throughout college, had a blast. Moved away, didn't play for years. Now (6 years later) we all get together twice a year to game. There are NINE of us (too many, but hey were friends)Five of them still live in the same town and also game every week.
Problem: I guess the time away kind of pushed a reset button for me. It allowed me to come back into things with an outsiders perspective. I started looking at things that have been done, and wondering if they are legit or better yet, reasonable. Some things may work within rules, but still seem a little silly.
Examples.
Please tell me Meta or not for each of the below:a. I watched one player move two other players miniatures into strategically better positions without their notice.
b. They will call out spells that their characters are about to cast. So Bob the Barbarian runs up, Sam the Sorcerer will say OOC Hey man I am about to hit that square with a fireball. Bob moves. I say, isn't that metagaming? Sam the sorcerer says, " Ok then in character I call out that I am about to fireball and so move." Well to me that means that 1. the move should count, and 2. both characters have an innate ability to visualize the field of battle, have perfect perception of measurement and be able to use said perception to determine the exact boundaries of said fireball and thus avoid it. (Does this happen to others) I understand a character can call FIREBALL. But I don't think we should be given dimensions of location beforehand, even if the character said, "Centered on Mr. Dark Cleric Guy" My character might have issue judging 30 feet from that location. Thoughts?
c. One guy, who really is good at tactics, ALMOST ALWAYS points out to others a better spot or location strategically for them to be in. This one just bugs me. If argued, he would say that the characters increased...
a) I don't this is so much metagaming as it is just plain outright cheating. It is each players responsibility to take care of their own movement and do so with their characters awareness.
b) I would say as long as the players work it out in real time with short phrases during the movement/shortly thereafter it is totally legit. Keep in mind however that with battle noise and for someone with a low wisdom the message might come out muffled or misinterpreted. Like he shouts over the battle that he is aiming a fireball at a specific spot. The situation might make the message hard to hear or understand, this being a good spot for an on the run perception check to see if they get the message at all.
c) Again does this PLAYER know alot about tactical movements and arrangements, or is he playing someone with a high wisdom/intellect? For one PC to be calling out a battle plan to his teamates in real time means that the enemies hear what he is saying at the same time and will do their best to patch up the holes in the defenses if he is so generous to point them out to the whole world. All this if they share the spoken language.
Overall Meta-gaming has more to do with applying knowledge of the mechanics of the game and things that the PC shouldn't know to the game.
Hope it helps, any further questions?
a. I watched one player move two other players miniatures into strategically better positions without their notice.
Not necessarily "cheating" or "metagaming".. its just odd.
We often move each others pieces for optimum placement- but not without the player's notice. its usually with a question. (i.e. wouldn't This be a better place to stand?)
b. They will call out spells that their characters are about to cast. So Bob the Barbarian runs up, Sam the Sorcerer will say OOC Hey man I am about to hit that square with a fireball. Bob moves. I say, isn't that metagaming? Sam the sorcerer says, " Ok then in character I call out that I am about to fireball and so move." Well to me that means that 1. the move should count, and 2. both characters have an innate ability to visualize the field of battle, have perfect perception of measurement and be able to use said perception to determine the exact boundaries of said fireball and thus avoid it. (Does this happen to others) I understand a character can call FIREBALL. But I don't think we should be given dimensions of location beforehand, even if the character said, "Centered on Mr. Dark Cleric Guy" My character might have issue judging 30 feet from that location. Thoughts?
This is metagaming. While talking doesn't usually take an action, you still have to do it on your own turn.
c. One guy, who really is good at tactics, ALMOST ALWAYS points out to others a better spot or location strategically for them to be in. This one just bugs me. If argued, he would say that the characters increased intelligence means we can pool our minds together and still not come up with what the character knows to do. A good argument, still, others don't want the advice anyway, and he practically controls 2 - 3 characters per combat through simple suggestion.
This might be metagaming- I'm not sure- but its common practice in the games I've been in. In our last session the Cleric "requested" one of the spell casters Not to stand in a specific square so as to not foil the melee's attempt to do something. (OOC, mind you- it wasn't an IC comment). Good? Bad? Up to your group I'd think.
d. They use what they know about GM'ing style of each one of then to make decisions on risk/cost analysis all the time.
This one really depends. If by style you mean "Well that can't be an illusion spell because Bob hates illusion spells and wouldn't use one against us" then yes, that is metagaming and its bad. On the other hand- if you are 12th level and haven't had an illusion cast at you yet- you aren't likely to suddenly suspect the spell is an illusion either. Some things that are Dm Style *do* translate over into the game world.
Wizards who never get their spellbooks stolen tend not to spend alot of gold keeping them safe, whereas once they get stolen they tend to start spending gold to protect them. Its a Dm style thing (whether or not the DM targets the spellbook) that can lead to a very IC reaction (protecting the item vs not).
e. How about when someone says, "I will hit you w/ a fireball if you are there." and the rogue's player responds that he has ridiculous evasion and will be fine. Now it can be argued that the character has seen this before so its not metagame. Maybe this is just risk analysis.
I think the rogue can be aware of his own abilities. He knows he has an uncanny ability to avoid being hurt from magic- even if its just a really good ability to "duck" at just the right moment.
All just my .02 though. Alot of "metagaming" is definately subjective, and it DOES get harder and harder Not to metagame the longer you play.
Try being level 5 for the 12th time, and be "bewildered" and "confused" about how to kill that troll..
-S
Not allt he answers you have received here are entirely correct based on the RAW.
One main point:
Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
So characters can speak to each other, even in full sentences, even in a few sentences, even when it is not their turn although I assume Shakespeare-esque run-on sentences (or run-on sentences like this one) might be pushing the rule a bit too far.
Given this rule, it is entirely fair for one character to advise another during combat, even on the other character's turn. Given that, then your examples B, C, and E are all perfectly valid in this game.
As for A, when you say "moving the mini without the player noticing" that sounds like cheating to me. I would also call it cheating if you moved your bishop in a chessgame while your oppoenent isn't looking (unless it was your legal move and you notified your opponent that you had made your move).
So the question is, are they making a legal move that the player could have made for his own PC? For example, if the player moves his mini to a space and is about to attack an adjacent monster, if another player reaches out and adjusts that mini to a nearby square, still adjacent to the monster he is attacking, and still within reach of that PC's legal movement (basically just altering the move that was just made) - and this is all done with the player's consent - then this is exactly the same as if the second player had used the "Speak" rule I quoted above to tell the first player where to move his PC. Say it out loud, or demonstrate it on the battlemat, it amounts to the same thing.
But doing that without the player even knowing, that I wouldn't allow - where is the DM when this is happening?
And finall, for D, you didn't give any specifics, but your sentence is clear and concise enough, and it clearly indicates metagaming.
I guess I have been having questions about what is and isn't metagaming as it seems to be a subjective topic and probably shouldn't be.
Background: I played with a group throughout college, had a blast. Moved away, didn't play for years. Now (6 years later) we all get together twice a year to game. There are NINE of us (too many, but hey were friends)Five of them still live in the same town and also game every week.
Problem: I guess the time away kind of pushed a reset button for me. It allowed me to come back into things with an outsiders perspective. I started looking at things that have been done, and wondering if they are legit or better yet, reasonable. Some things may work within rules, but still seem a little silly.
Examples.
Please tell me Meta or not for each of the below:a. I watched one player move two other players miniatures into strategically better positions without their notice.
Annoying IMO, but not really metagaming.
b. They will call out spells that their characters are about to cast. So Bob the Barbarian runs up, Sam the Sorcerer will say OOC Hey man I am about to hit that square with a fireball. Bob moves. I say, isn't that metagaming? Sam the sorcerer says, " Ok then in character I call out that I am about to fireball and so move." Well to me that means that 1. the move should count, and 2. both characters have an innate ability to visualize the field of battle, have perfect perception of measurement and be able to use said perception to determine the exact boundaries of said fireball and thus avoid it. (Does this happen to others) I understand a character can call FIREBALL. But I don't think we should be given dimensions of location beforehand, even if the character said, "Centered on Mr. Dark Cleric Guy" My character might have issue judging 30 feet from that location. Thoughts?
I would file this under enhanced teamwork. Remember that most adventurering groups have been together for years in many cases, and have fought lots of combats together. I think the the characters might actually know each others combats styles better than the players do.
c. One guy, who really is good at tactics, ALMOST ALWAYS points out to others a better spot or location strategically for them to be in. This one just bugs me. If argued, he would say that the characters increased intelligence means we can pool our minds together and still not come up with what the character knows to do. A good argument, still, others don't want the advice anyway, and he practically controls 2 - 3 characters per combat through simple suggestion.
Perfectly acceptable IMO. One suggestion for playing a high intelligence character is to let that character be the front man for all of the player's smart ideas, because it is hard to RP an intelligence of 24 when even the smartest of us don't have int above 18.
Likewise, RPing a fighter who is the veteran of many combats is hard for most of us because we haven't been in any battles. Taking suggestions from other players on how to fight better lets him actually play to the level of his character's skill.
d. They use what they know about GM'ing style of each one of then to make decisions on risk/cost analysis all the time.
This is borderline metagaming. Risk/Reward analysis is normal, but taking different GM styles into account is crossing the line. This really needs to be fixed on the GM side by having a GM change styles to throw everyone off.
e. How about when someone says, "I will hit you w/ a fireball if you are there." and the rogue's player responds that he has ridiculous evasion and will be fine. Now it can be argued that the character has seen this before so its not metagame. Maybe this is just risk analysis. Thoughts.
The characters know what they can and cannot survive. This is pretty normal IMO. Even better when there is witty banter involved. "You're gonna get singed if you stand there...." "By your pathetic little flames? I think not."
Now these types of things and more bug three of us. However, 5 of them play together weekly and this is their norm. How does one handle breaking that?
(We share a GM'ing job. Each time we meet, we have a new GM. When I GM, the poop may hit the fan!!! muhahahahahha...cough cough...)
Examples.
Please tell me Meta or not for each of the below:a. I watched one player move two other players miniatures into strategically better positions without their notice.
Yeah, move -my- miniature without my permission and see how well that goes over, heh. I agree with some of the others... that's outright cheating. Unless you're the GM, you have one and only one miniature you're allowed to move.
b. They will call out spells that their characters are about to cast. So Bob the Barbarian runs up, Sam the Sorcerer will say OOC Hey man I am about to hit that square with a fireball. Bob moves. I say, isn't that metagaming? Sam the sorcerer says, " Ok then in character I call out that I am about to fireball and so move." Well to me that means that 1. the move should count, and 2. both characters have an innate ability to visualize the field of battle, have perfect perception of measurement and be able to use said perception to determine the exact boundaries of said fireball and thus avoid it. (Does this happen to others) I understand a character can call FIREBALL. But I don't think we should be given dimensions of location beforehand, even if the character said, "Centered on Mr. Dark Cleric Guy" My character might have issue judging 30 feet from that location. Thoughts?
This is blatant metagaming imo.... but it's a necessary evil in these games. Do the rest of you honestly think a given character can even begin to comprehend the concept of 5' squares and how many 5' squares away he'd need to be to avoid a fireball's radius? I've seen respectable players move their minis to -just- outside the radius of the fireball after taking a minute to measure the exact dimensions of said fireball on the battlemat and choose the most optimal position once the caster OOC told him -exactly- which 5' square the fireball would be centered in. Another example would be knowing -exactly- where to place a fireball in order to get the maximum amount of baddies in the blast... realistically, in the fog of combat it would be nigh impossible to be so accurate and make such precise decisions on the fly like that... but we all just kind of turn a blind eye to that because it's a game.
c. One guy, who really is good at tactics, ALMOST ALWAYS points out to others a better spot or location strategically for them to be in. This one just bugs me. If argued, he would say that the characters increased...
Again, the concept of 5' squares should be alien to your character... but we all look the other way. It's metagaming, but it's acceptable metagaming.
a. I watched one player move two other players miniatures into strategically better positions without their notice.
Cheating, not metagaming. If you move a figure without the permission of the owner, it better well be to make sure it ends up where it started. There are some strict rules in chess for when you can touch a piece, and I would adhere to those and then some.
b. They will call out spells that their characters are about to cast. So Bob the Barbarian runs up, Sam the Sorcerer will say OOC Hey man I am about to hit that square with a fireball. Bob moves. I say, isn't that metagaming? Sam the sorcerer says, " Ok then in character I call out that I am about to fireball and so move." Well to me that means that 1. the move should count, and 2. both characters have an innate ability to visualize the field of battle, have perfect perception of measurement and be able to use said perception to determine the exact boundaries of said fireball and thus avoid it. (Does this happen to others) I understand a character can call FIREBALL. But I don't think we should be given dimensions of location beforehand, even if the character said, "Centered on Mr. Dark Cleric Guy" My character might have issue judging 30 feet from that location. Thoughts?
This could or could not be metagaming. Some people have great spacial awareness and can say just how far 30' really is. I'm decent at it on open ground, but ask me to pack a box and I have problems figuring out how much to stuff in it. I agree with the stuff the other posters mentioned above about communication.
c. One guy, who really is good at tactics, ALMOST ALWAYS points out to others a better spot or location strategically for them to be in. This one just bugs me. If argued, he would say that the characters increased intelligence means we can pool our minds together and still not come up with what the character knows to do. A good argument, still, others don't want the advice anyway, and he practically controls 2 - 3 characters per combat through simple suggestion.
Again, can be metagaming. If his character is a grizzled veteran warrior, then let him give suggestions in-game. Out of character, this is how you help the newbies. If it really irks you (say, because the 1st-level bard is doing this), you can always insist on something like an Intelligence check to see if the character could come up with that idea.
d. They use what they know about GM'ing style of each one of then to make decisions on risk/cost analysis all the time.
Metagaming, but a necessary fact of life. You didn't take a 3.5 rogue into the Age of Worms unless you WANTED to be bored and then dead (unless you had wraithstrike available, of course). Besides, if you know they're analyzing your style, you can always counter that by changing things up. But really, you don't want to be playing a druid in an urban campaign, a paladin in a morally-grey world, or things like that. So knowing your GM and making decisions like this is at least necessary. If they don't, their characters end up dead, and that's not really fun.
e. How about when someone says, "I will hit you w/ a fireball if you are there." and the rogue's player responds that he has ridiculous evasion and will be fine. Now it can be argued that the character has seen this before so its not metagame. Maybe this is just risk analysis. Thoughts.
Risk analysis, sure. First time it happens, it's probably metagaming unless the rogue or monk or whomever has shown they can dodge blasts previously. It's also good tactics, and one I've used before.
While talking doesn't usually take an action, you still have to do it on your own turn.
Actually, this isn't true. DM_Blake is right. Despite being a free action, you actually CAN talk when it isn't your turn. In fact, you can say as much as you want, limited only to what the GM thinks is sensible for a round.
Many of the situations you describe to involve various amounts of metagaming, but not necessarily BAD metagaming. A is cheating. D is BAD metagaming. They should be thinking about what their characters would do, or how the NPC characters might react, not how the GM plays the game.
You as a GM could always require a Knowledge: Tactics skill check along with a Knowledge: Arcana check (for knowing the ins and outs of a Fireball for non-arcane casters) to be allowed to "metagame" as described. That would certainly make things more realistic.
To be honest, I've noticed all of these tactics in games I've played, and I'll admit, that I've done it myself before.
The only way around this is to sit down and discuss it with them, come to some sort of compromise, or it's not going to be fixed.
As a DM and player in these situations, I've just learned to disconnect. If a new player doesn't heal me when I need healed, I'm not going to suggest it OOP, or yell at them when I drop. It doesn't make the game fun to stress out about always "winning." They will learn, and as a DM I tend to be more lenient on encounters when stuff like this happens.
Now, in your situation, if I had players metagaming/cheating. I'll point it out, and roll out the stops to drop the party if that's what it takes for them to learn a lesson.
You as a GM could always require a Knowledge: Tactics skill check along with a Knowledge: Arcana check (for knowing the ins and outs of a Fireball for non-arcane casters) to be allowed to "metagame" as described. That would certainly make things more realistic.
I have also considered having casters make a knowledge:engineering check if they're trying to place a fireball just so. It's one thing to say "I'm going to center it on the bad guy" and a whole different thing to say "I'm going to center it exactly 19.8 feet above the bad guy's head so it doesn't hit my party members surrounding him."
I never metagame I didn't like. >.>
|
Well, everyone seems to be having fun so what's the problem? Who cares if there's metagaming?
Regarding PC tactics w/out metagame thinking:
It's not reasonable to argue that the Player running the PC is going to know more about combat tactics than the PC in its own little shared fantasy world. A Fighter in D&D is gonna know nearly a bajillion times more about combat than any gamer. So a PC is gonna do the most tactical thing assuming he has at least a 10 INT and a couple levels in a combat Class. . . . Now, as a DM, if I had a handful of 1st level PCs and the novice Fighter with the 7 INT started using really good tactics, I challenge the Player or Players advising him. But, um, Flanking ain't hard to come up with -- 1st level Commoners with INTs of 4 or 5 are clever enough to Flank.
And PCs working together, communicating, in a fight just makes sense. Wizards are gonna shout their code-word for "get outta that area cuz my fireball's gonna go boom. Especially after they've fought together a few fights.
Regarding PC tactics with metagame thinking:
A) Some gamers, myself included, hate the battlemat. For me, fondling miniatures and battlemat wargaming ain't fun. At all. Not even a wee bit. Looking for areas of effect and good intersections sucks. And it takes a hunnerd years to get through combat. What a friggen waste. If I want something like that I'll play Warhammer or Risk (actually, Risk is pretty cool, but still-). Now, as a DM I've gotten pretty darn good at battlemat tactics but most of my games go without them. . . . Now, if I'm playing a PC Paladin in someone else's game and another Player gives me advice on what square to enter, I don't care. My Paladin knows how to fight better than I. If that piece of sh!t battlemat weren't there it'd be no problem. I'd let the DM know I'm getting in a good position to flank with the Rogue, etc., etc.
B) Some (most)gamers, like myself, don't have time between sessions to think much about D&D. Work, family, World Cup, chess -- all that stuff fills my week. When a session begins where I'm one of the PCs, I don't remember jack about what we learned last. It takes a little refresher from the other Players to help me. My PC, HOWEVER, remembers everything and isn't gonna blunder the way I would. For him, life didn't go blank for 7 days and all the sudden resume.
a. I watched one player move two other players miniatures into strategically better positions without their notice.
Absolutely Meta. Cheating. No question. Bad form. Tell him to put them back. If you moved your monsters on the battlegrid when it wasn't your turn to act in initiative there would be holy hell to pay.
b. They will call out spells that their characters are about to cast. So Bob the Barbarian runs up, Sam the Sorcerer will say OOC Hey man I am about to hit that square with a fireball. Bob moves. I say, isn't that metagaming? Sam the sorcerer says, " Ok then in character I call out that I am about to fireball and so move." Well to me that means that 1. the move should count, and 2. both characters have an innate ability to visualize the field of battle, have perfect perception of measurement and be able to use said perception to determine the exact boundaries of said fireball and thus avoid it. (Does this happen to others) I understand a character can call FIREBALL. But I don't think we should be given dimensions of location beforehand, even if the character said, "Centered on Mr. Dark Cleric Guy" My character might have issue judging 30 feet from that location. Thoughts?
Hmmmmmm.
I can appreciate the frustration. However as much as it pains me (because I dislike metagaming), I think there has to be some give and take with measurement and distance. I attribute this to "basic fun", and the fact that the characters are supposed to be reasonably competent in what they do and how they work together.
I had some guy at a convention quiz me on how I would hold a rapier. So I showed him. He then sniffed and explained that he was a competitive fencer in real life, and I was wrong in my technique, so the other guy had an advantage. I looked at him as if he was a loon. "I'm not here to play Jim Groves, Average Schmuck. I'm here to play a fantasy hero."
It feels cheesy, yeah. But I would insist that they call this stuff out in character first and foremost.. but let them move out of the way of the fireball and not worry about if the barbarian knows the range of the spell. It's what heroes would do in a fantasy adventure movie or novel.
You can push simulationism too far. I'd let this one go.
c. One guy, who really is good at tactics, ALMOST ALWAYS points out to others a better spot or location strategically for them to be in. This one just bugs me. If argued, he would say that the characters increased intelligence means we can pool our minds together and still not come up with what the character knows to do. A good argument, still, others don't want the advice anyway, and he practically controls 2 - 3 characters per combat through simple suggestion.
I don’t even think it’s a good argument, frankly. Tell him to stop. What is key here is that the other players (by your description), don’t want his help. Enough said. Where this behavior is appropriate is when you have a player who is unclear on the rules or is just new to the game. Helping is fine when you’re teaching. However doing the ol’ “Uni-Mind” is something else altogether. He probably is a better player than others. However they’re never going to get any better of they don’t experience the game themselves.
This also adds a degree of power creep in the game. Yeah, that term is usually reserved for mechanics, but I think you can apply it here. You’re one GM controlling many details and variables. If you’re constantly up against a "committee think-tank", then it’s that much harder and stressful to present a fun challenge.
But it all comes back to the fact that they’re not asking for his help. So tell him to knock it off.
d. They use what they know about GM'ing style of each one of then to make decisions on risk/cost analysis all the time.
Not sure I follow, but if I am understanding you correctly.. I’m not sure there is anything to be done about that, other than the GM not to repeat too many techniques or tricks. Mix it up a little. It adds to the prep time, but sometimes if I have the time I just study the PCs and my monsters, and look for new ways to spice things up.
e. How about when someone says, "I will hit you w/ a fireball if you are there." and the rogue's player responds that he has ridiculous evasion and will be fine. Now it can be argued that the character has seen this before so its not metagame. Maybe this is just risk analysis. Thoughts.
Lame, but possibly unavoidable without house ruling something. Yeah.. the more I think about that, I’m not sure that is something you can address without a house rule. Its mediocre role-playing to be sure (“I elect to ignore the exploding ball of fire because of the confidence I have in myself not to get hit”), but not technically breaking any rule.
If I house ruled that I might say, “You can have standard evasion, but not improved evasion, because the spell is coming from a source you wouldn’t normally have your guard up against.” That puts an element of risk in there. Even if their Reflex Save is really high, they can still roll a 1. However, that is a house rule, with everything that entails. I certainly would inform the payers well in advance of an applicable combat that you were instituting it.
Well, everyone seems to be having fun so what's the problem? Who cares if there's metagaming?
I agree with some of your points W E, but it sounds like not everyone *is* having fun. The OP obviously has an issue with it, and reports that some of his players agree with him.
As a DM and player in these situations, I've just learned to disconnect. If a new player doesn't heal me when I need healed, I'm not going to suggest it OOP, or yell at them when I drop. It doesn't make the game fun to stress out about always "winning." They will learn, and as a DM I tend to be more lenient on encounters when stuff like this happens.
Even if it is slightly contradictory to some of my responses above- I do think Marrack is speaking with a certain wisdom here.
You can worry too much about this stuff. Some players have never had a really good GM, and they learn bad habits. With patience and encouragement they get better. Some players also just want more of a board game experience, and that isn't necesarily wrong or bad- just different.
I'd try coaching and encouragement. It might take awhile, but this might smooth out.
But the guy in Question A? Uh uh. No way. The first time you try that as a GM with a monster, the players will make the case against doing that for you.
I wouldn't allow the character to move others, and this would be stopped. In regards to the other metagame issues, I typically let initiative dictate who can speak. Although you may be able to speak any time, this must be done within reason, as you can't have the entire group guiding you on specific actions, but may make general statements on the current situation. Part of the fun is learning group dynamics, and guessing what the next person is doing without a lot of banter.
You could also implement a rule that anything that is stated is heard by everyone, so in stealth situations, or when other creatures are around, do you really want to state you are casting a fireball and everyone should avoid this area.
|
|
Well, everyone seems to be having fun so what's the problem? Who cares if there's metagaming?
I agree with some of your points Ray, but it sounds like not everyone *is* having fun. The OP obviously has an issue with it, and reports that some of his players agree with him.
You're right, I forgot to post earlier that my advice would be to just let the other Player know that You prefer moving your own miniature and, while still being a team player, would rather make your own tactical decisions.
Just like there's nothing wrong with Players (like me) who don't like playing on a battlemat, there's certainly nothing wrong with Players that love playing on a battlemat and counting squares and looking for strategic intersections for areas of effect.... For those Players, it's no big deal to move another Player's miniature AS LONG AS that Player doesn't mind it.
It seems as if the OP, in rejoining his old group, brought in a different play-style. There's nothing wrong with the other Players enjoying the team-work stuff they do, metagame or no metagame -- THEY'RE HAVING FUN in their precious free time. Meanwhile, the OP, who enjoys something a little different, can move his own mini and make his own tactical decisions, And still work WITH the other Players.
It seems as if the OP, in rejoining his old group, brought in a different play-style. There's nothing wrong with the other Players enjoying the team-work stuff they do, metagame or no metagame -- THEY'RE HAVING FUN in their precious free time. Meanwhile, the OP, who enjoys something a little different, can move his own mini and make his own tactical decisions, And still work WITH the other Players.
True.
My first DM had a 6-word rule to what was said on the table, and your turn only. Six seconds a round, he figured, six words a round. Anything that was said was ASSUMED to be in character, unless you were describing what you were doing to the DM himself, so if you said "I'm going to drop a fireball here, so watch out" to the rogue, you just gave the enemy a +2 favorable conditions bonus, since he KNOWS it's coming, and you better hope he delay, 'cause if he did, you just got yourself a counterspell readied, or something of the like against you.
To me, metagaming is less tactics discussion and more stuff like, to use a silly example, to have a PC who has never heard of dragons before to say, "That's a black dragon! It breathes acid!"
Player assumptions that trump character knowledge can be really annoying and I do consider that cheating. Of course, it's fun to do things like give creatures class levels and advanced hit dice and templates and make up your own monsters. This usually trips up metagamers pretty damn well (although some will still accuse you of "cheating" for not using a monster stat block straight out of the book--but fortunately I haven't had to deal with that in a very long time). Players who specifically metagame about monsters' abilities generally screw themselves over from making the wrong assumptions eventually.
Tactics discussions? To an extent, I think it's fine. PF and its d20 predecessors are extremely tactical games; if you're going to run full force with the rules as they are, I personally think you need to let the players have a chance to plan tactics. It works well for the game system.
That said, it is important to go too far. To look at the fireball question--I would say to the CASTER: "You ARE aware you'll hit the Barbarian if you aim the spell that way, right?" Sometimes people just forget stuff and I'm not always going to let one player suffer from another player's mistake.
I would NOT let the barbarian magically know the caster was going to cast the spell, although if the caster yelled, "Hey Bjorn, move 10 feet to the left!" that would be fine.
It is also important to draw a line between character ability and player ability. I'm fine with basic tactics discussions, but if the barbarian with the Int of 6 and the Cha of 6 starts lecturing the NPC Captain of the Guard about legionary tactics and leadership abilities, that's a different issue.
My first DM had a 6-word rule to what was said on the table, and your turn only. Six seconds a round, he figured, six words a round. Anything that was said was ASSUMED to be in character, unless you were describing what you were doing to the DM himself, so if you said "I'm going to drop a fireball here, so watch out" to the rogue, you just gave the enemy a +2 favorable conditions bonus, since he KNOWS it's coming, and you better hope he delay, 'cause if he did, you just got yourself a counterspell readied, or something of the like against you.
I like that technique. I don't want to come across as a nazi GM, because I let this stuff slide most of the time. I do however have one problem child.. the party wizard who is particularly bad with elaborate metagaming.
I might use this to reign him in a little.
**************
Deathquaker had some good comments.
***********
Slight change of topic.. I know this isn't a 4E conversation, but I when I do run it, I tend to give the warlord a lot more slack. Tactical metagaming is practically a class feature.
Back on topic.
I do however have one problem child.. the party wizard who is particularly bad with elaborate metagaming.
At least you can make that wizard USE those bloody knowledge ranks he has to justify his knowing that a slashing cold iron weapon is just what they need against this enemy, etc.
Honestly, that's why I'm throwing together a diviner/loremaster for my next character. I can't help but know what to do against enemies, so I might as well have the stats to back it up.
|
I'd allow the table talk for tactics. It's fun. It allows all the players to contribute. It smooths out the wis/int disparity between players and characters. Yelling directions in combat happens. Embrace the chaos!
Metagaming is character vs player knowledge as discussed. It's also, playing the GAME more than playing the CHARACTER. Things like "DM wouldn’t create an encounter that we can’t handle"....anything that kills verisimilitude and emersion into game should be discourage. Otherwise, it's just a game of numbers and dice. Pretty boring.
|
|
I agree with Death Quaker.
But at some point we have to draw a line for allowances of common knowledge.
In the same way that the average person in real life knows silver bullets for werewolves and sunlight for vampires, there's gotta be an allowance for common knowledge in D&D.
That's where it gets tricky.
Is it common knowledge for fire and trolls?
Everyone who plays D&D knows this; is it reasonable to assume that nearly every 1st level Commoner knows this, too?
If it depends on PC level -- say, at 1st or 2nd level you have to roll but, heck, by 5th level everyone knows that.
Then, how does a DM choose what level; how does a DM choose what monster & SU ability?
For my games PCs starting at 1st level have to roll everything (except vampires & werewolves) and have to roll everything no matter what level they get to.
It goes something like this:
DM: "Just check to make sure you know fire hurts trolls; it's only DC10." . . . .
DM: "Oops, you suck -- no biggie, guys, I'll give a DC5 Perception Check to notice he's regenerating and whoever sees it can have an Immediate Action to hollar it out." . . . .
DM: "Sorry, Zinfandel The Red, you can't 'guess' that your Fireball will work. I'll let you roll a d4 to determine what your guess is - 1=Cold, 2=Acid, 3=Fire, 4=Lightning -- or, you can just use a Magic Missile that you know is cool."
If, on the other hand, I start a Campaign at, say, 6th level, I use my own judgement on what the PCs have to roll and what I'll give them for experience before the Campaign started.
Examples.
Please tell me Meta or not for each of the below:a. I watched one player move two other players miniatures into strategically better positions without their notice.
Not cool for a player to move another player's token without their permission under any circumstance.
b. They will call out spells that their characters are about to cast. So Bob the Barbarian runs up, Sam the Sorcerer will say OOC Hey man I am about to hit that square with a fireball. Bob moves. I say, isn't that metagaming? Sam the sorcerer says, " Ok then in character I call out that I am about to fireball and so move." Well to me that means that 1. the move should count, and 2. both characters have an innate ability to visualize the field of battle, have perfect perception of measurement and be able to use said perception to determine the exact boundaries of said fireball and thus avoid it. (Does this happen to others) I understand a character can call FIREBALL. But I don't think we should be given dimensions of location beforehand, even if the character said, "Centered on Mr. Dark Cleric Guy" My character might have issue judging 30 feet from that location. Thoughts?
Yeah, it's metagaming. But a certain amount of metagaming is necessary to play the game properly. The character should probably not have access to all this information. But here's the thing. Within the framework of the system, it's assumed they do. That's the whole reason you pull out the mat in the first place. It's not any worse than taking a few minutes to take your turn and avoid damaging allies in any other miniatures based wargame.
c. One guy, who really is good at tactics, ALMOST ALWAYS points out to others a better spot or location strategically for them to be in. This one just bugs me. If argued, he would say that the characters increased intelligence means we can pool our minds together and still not come up with what the character knows to do. A good argument, still, others don't want the advice anyway, and he practically controls 2 - 3 characters per combat through simple suggestion.
There's nothing wrong with giving advice. Again, see my last point. If he's being disruptive, that's another matter entirely.
d. They use what they know about GM'ing style of each one of then to make decisions on risk/cost analysis all the time.
Yeah, that's the bad kind of metagaming.
e. How about when someone says, "I will hit you w/ a fireball if you are there." and the rogue's player responds that he has ridiculous evasion and will be fine. Now it can be argued that the character has seen this before so its not metagame. Maybe this is just risk analysis. Thoughts.
See my point under B again.
In summary: There's a certain amount of metagaing that's actually required to play the game. Most of these things fall within those boundaries. In fact, not allowing the players to co-ordinate their turns will cripple their combat effectiveness, since the system assumes everyone in combat knows how to play effectively.
...
Is it common knowledge for fire and trolls?Everyone who plays D&D knows this; is it reasonable to assume that nearly every 1st level Commoner knows this, too? ...
This si what knowledge skills are for. Since you can take 10 on knowledges, everyone of 10 int is assumes to have knowledge of anything the DM has declared DC 10. "Fire kills trolls" is a good candidate for this.
|
|
This si what knowledge skills are for. Since you can take 10 on knowledges, everyone of 10 int is assumes to have knowledge of anything the DM has declared DC 10. "Fire kills trolls" is a good candidate for this.
...
Is it common knowledge for fire and trolls?Everyone who plays D&D knows this; is it reasonable to assume that nearly every 1st level Commoner knows this, too? ...
Two problems here, 1) knowledge is not an untrained skill 2) the RAW is specific on how this checks work.
So for a troll, as a "humanoid," the skill is Knowledge(Local) for which you must have at least 1 rank to use the skill. The DC for identifying a creature is either 5/10/15 + cr, depending on the rarity. "Goblins" are given as common, and so a troll is situational/dm call. If your in the land of trolls it is 5+CR otherwise it is probably 10+CR.
So DC 15 to know it is a troll. With that you gets its name and "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster." For every 5 you beat the DC you get a little more information.
So every player may know trolls hate fire, but every character shouldn't and discovering trolls for the first time should probably be fearsome to all but the most stout adventurer (IE you are already seen weirder stuff.)
Is it odd that I don't often have this problem? I play pbp, and I guess I get kind of picky with which games I join, but my players rock. Possibly my favorite moment was when a Witch in the party tried to use Command on an attacking ghoul. The player knew it wouldn't work, but the character didn't! We came out of it alright, and the DM even boosted the witch's xp for excellent role-playing.
So maybe that isn't everyone's style, but it's definitely one way to play the game.
My first DM had a 6-word rule to what was said on the table, and your turn only. Six seconds a round, he figured, six words a round. Anything that was said was ASSUMED to be in character, unless you were describing what you were doing to the DM himself, so if you said "I'm going to drop a fireball here, so watch out" to the rogue, you just gave the enemy a +2 favorable conditions bonus, since he KNOWS it's coming, and you better hope he delay, 'cause if he did, you just got yourself a counterspell readied, or something of the like against you.I like that technique.
Just wanted to point out that a common way of counting off seconds "one thousand one, one thousand two, ..." messes a 6 word rule up. One second is a bit longer than (I think) most people would estimate. You could use a 10-20 word rule, but that'd be a bit much to keep track of in mid-game.
I often call for knowledge checks against certain monsters.
Yes omnipotent lord wraithstrike confuse them by forcing their minds to research your monstrous minions such that when your all powerful being desends they will have no chance of stopping your domination.
I wonder what would happen if a GM played a campaign with nothing but stereotypical monsters but switched names and physical descriptions.
IE. You see a great greenish monster like a human, with long lanky limbs and vicious teeth!. (Troll)
Knowledge check
PassIts a Shambling Mound! Would they still play the same if they didn't bother with the knowledge checks on how to beat things?
I'd hope so.
When the game was new (to me) there was alot of excitement in fighting monsters and seeing new creatures because I didn't know how to fight it all. The challenge was in discovering the weaknesses or coming up with effective tactics to downing whatever it was.
Now days though, alot of the challenge in RPing at all is in successfully differentiating between what I, Selgard, knows and what Manias, my character, knows, and acting accordingly.
I'm reminded of one session (several years ago now) where someone cast something and healed up and the guy facing it failed the spellcraft check (my character didn't have line of sight at the time) and while I knew* what happened.. my character didn't. And that translated into me keeping *my* mouth shut because telling the others OOC would ruin the moment for them.
Being new vs being old has its challenges.. but its all still the fun of the game.
-S