|
It bothers me when players metagame by choosing the objectively optimal choice when it's unlikely that their character would have made the same choice.
The most recent example was in a paladin alignment thread. The party is heading into a tomb, and they spot a wyvern's nest with two sleeping adult wyverns nearby. Presumably, the party could have easily bypassed the animals with stealth. However, the paladin decided to kill the wyverns while they slept, because there was minimal risk in doing so, no real mechanical consequences for doing so, and it would eliminate a potential threat that the wyverns might pose in the future.
But when was the last time you read a story or saw a movie where the hero decided to kill a Neutral sleeping creature instead of simply sneaking past? In the few exceptions I could think of, the character is an explicit antihero. The fact that he would kill something when it wasn't necessary is part of the conflict of having an amoral character in the role of hero.
Most heroes wouldn't do this - but a player moving his PC about as if it were a chess piece would.
Probably the ultimate example of this behavior (in my experience) was in a zombie apocalypse game I ran last year. One player didn't get into his character at all (partially my fault, as I was the one who put together the pre-gens for the game), so he metagamed to a huge extent. His character behaved as if he had no fear of zombies, and he did everything that you would expect someone to do if they were fearless and had watched every zombie movie ever. To make matters worse, he quickly took charge of the party and became the de facto leader.
It made the whole game rather boring, with the players giving me descriptions of how they were constructing tactical barricades, destroying potential ambush routes, and making portable bridges in order to move from rooftop to rooftop, while I just kind of nodded and said "yup, that works".
The highlights of that game (by all accounts) were when people actually played to the complications of their characters - the EMT with a fear of heights who refused to leave anyone behind was one of the most interesting characters, because his player made a lot of character-driven decisions instead of simply choosing the optimal course.
I'm sorry you think killing an intelligent neutral creature doesn't have mechanical problems for the paladin?
Let me clue you -- that's called murder. Which isn't a good act, isn't a lawful act, and is highly suspect for chaotic evil on the get go.
It certainly isn't acting with honor.
As to zombies -- well you should have no fear of them. They are craptastic on a flaming stick with no real danger to anyone capable of using more than two brain cells.
There are ways around metagaming
you simply put the player in the same position as his character.
Now what I mean by that is that players have alot more time to think about thier actions than charcaters.
a 6 second round takes several minutes to run and when its not your turn your thinking and planning what to do next.
so how do you stop the metgame ? throw too much at players and if they take too long to choose what they are doing let real in-game time pass.
Players talking about making a baracade aginst zombies
DM: "in the time you've been talking the zombies are now 100 meters closer then they were"
metagamming is hard if you don't have time to think it so to make things even worse when the metagamers turn comes round throw an extra event at him. "it your turn now and you now hear moans comming from behind you,"
now his plans he'd been making need to be changed , but don't give him time to change them, get his choice in 10 seconds or it starts eating into real game time.
I guess reward good role playing like that, and punish bad mechanical actions....like have the wyverns be a "necessary" escape route, which the PCs can no longer use because they killed the wyverns. Or just give the paladin a magical saddle of wyvern taming....and no more wyverns to be found.
Give the EMT some extra face time, and maybe have the NPC that almost got left behind give the EMT a big clue or stash of medicine or something.
I once played an EMT in a zombie apocalypse....I used a firemans ax versus zombies. Well, mostly I used a jeep versus zombies. :-> Once when he was in his boxers. That was inconvienent. The GM made us design our PCs with 2 levels of pre-zombie apocalypse feat and skill and class choices, and 2 levels of after Z-day. My Tough Hero EMT/Firefighter had Endurance, Great Fortitude (for holding breath in smoke), and Exotic Vehicle Driving (heavy wheeled vehicle), so he could drive fire trucks like Kramer!
|
|
I'm sorry you think killing an intelligent neutral creature doesn't have mechanical problems for the paladin?
Let me clue you -- that's called murder. Which isn't a good act, isn't a lawful act, and is highly suspect for chaotic evil on the get go.
It certainly isn't acting with honor.
As to zombies -- well you should have no fear of them. They are craptastic on a flaming stick with no real danger to anyone capable of using more than two brain cells.
That's the thing that's being debated in the other thread - you're welcome to go over there and do so. The point is the player wasn't aware of any real penalties he would face for killing the creatures.
As to zombies - this game I describe wasn't a d20 game, so the stat blocks for the zombies were more of a threat to the characters than you think.
Phasics - What you suggest are good ideas, and that's precisely what I did in my game. I had to change a lot of stuff on the fly, and it was a constant effort for me to continually challenge the characters, simply because many of them were not behaving like people in a zombie apocalypse.
SmiloDan - I agree about giving the EMT extra face time, and rewarding good roleplaying. I did these things as well. In fact, the system we were using was Cortex, which mechanically rewards you for playing up your character's drawbacks.
I think it's really a matter of different people wanting different things out of a game. In the zombie apocalypse game, the "bad roleplayer" guy was pleased with himself that he made it through an entire zombie apocalypse without suffering a single point of damage, while the EMT player was very happy that his character got some dramatic scenes trying to save an NPC that was a lost cause. Another player was happy having been the person who accidentally killed off more pre-generated PCs than anyone else.
Yeah I don't care. Zombies are at the bottom of my "monsters to worry about" list, and for good reason. In the cold they freeze up, in the heat they explode and die, biting is the worse method of transmission of a disease possible, they rot and fall apart, their most dangerous predator is also their supposed prey...
Honestly the idea that a zombie apocalypse can happen is laughable in the first place.
Yeah I don't care. Zombies are at the bottom of my "monsters to worry about" list, and for good reason. In the cold they freeze up, in the heat they explode and die, biting is the worse method of transmission of a disease possible, they rot and fall apart, their most dangerous predator is also their supposed prey...
Honestly the idea that a zombie apocalypse can happen is laughable in the first place.
unless they are fast zombies who sprint at you ;)
Is it metagaming to look at a *large predatory poisonous* creature and kill it to rid the countryside of the menace, while Also making sure it doesn't wake up and try to kill you then- or possibly in the near future?
I don't consider it metagaming at *all*.
While the creature may not pose a threat now (due to CR) they can easily do so later if the PC's are weakened or if they are int he middle of another fight. Sure they can sneak past them now but a combat that happens in a few minutes could wake the beasts and draw their ire.
Its not metagaming- its pragmatic. *killing a foe that is likely to try to come eat you when it wakes up* isn't a bad idea.
(if they could completely sneak past and leave the area with no chance of the critter waking up then maybe- MAYBE leaving them alone is worth a shot.. but overall? no. Kill large predator so it doesn't trouble the countryside? Imo? Good deed.
2) it isn't metagaming to stay alive during a zombie-pocalypse. Taking the "roof" route is actually very intelligent. Once the PC's realize the zombies can't climb (or burrow or swim or whatever it is you decide they can or can't do), then expect the PC's to take advantage of that weakness.
If they find zombies especially flammable then expect them to look for ways to set them on fire. Alot.
Would the PC in a zombie-infested land seek the most expedient way to be safe from them, even if that meant going to the roof tops? Abso-freaking-lutely.
To do otherwise is just insane and is "role playing dumb" just for the sake of role playing dumb. Not bad for a low-intelligence PC but remember that even animals are smart enough to *hide* from hunters that attack them. Even low int Pc's will eventually figure out how to get away.
That, or they'll join the zombie army.
-S
How many real people kill snakes and spiders who are minding their own business? In a gaming world where monsters are real and will eat wandering villages a player, or character, could make a very real argument that killing them is saving lives.
Now the alignment aspects are a different matter... and is something you could discuss with your group at your table. But a predator that eats people given the chance is a threat that should be considered by players and probably eliminated.
It bothers me when players metagame by choosing the objectively optimal choice when it's unlikely that their character would have made the same choice.
The most recent example was in a paladin alignment thread. The party is heading into a tomb, and they spot a wyvern's nest with two sleeping adult wyverns nearby. Presumably, the party could have easily bypassed the animals with stealth. However, the paladin decided to kill the wyverns while they slept, because there was minimal risk in doing so, no real mechanical consequences for doing so, and it would eliminate a potential threat that the wyverns might pose in the future.
But when was the last time you read a story or saw a movie where the hero decided to kill a Neutral sleeping creature instead of simply sneaking past? In the few exceptions I could think of, the character is an explicit antihero. The fact that he would kill something when it wasn't necessary is part of the conflict of having an amoral character in the role of hero.
Most heroes wouldn't do this - but a player moving his PC about as if it were a chess piece would.
I would have given the wyverns (each) a perception check (with penalty for being asleep) (with bonus for a loud armored paladin with clanking armor) for waking up. The paladin wanted to eliminate a potential threat, this sounds reasonable to me. The paladin murdering them in there sleep, does not. I would mention that this would be murder. IF the paladin does it anyway, would have him role a saving throw vs Will. If he fails, alignment shift and nows he a knight until he attones.
Now on to the Zombies =
Were the players playing commoner, expert, warrior, or even adepts. If so, then you might have them role will saves vs the zombies to flee for 1d4 rounds, with a once per hour limit role.
On the other hand, why would a wizard/sorcerer who shoots fire out of there hands or cause fear with a spell be afraid of zombies. What about a druid who at 4th level, TURNS INTO A BEAR. Even a fighter is use to wading into battle again orcs, gnolls, and trolls should not be any more fearful than normal vs zombies. Most Player characters are monsters in and onto themselves.
How many real people kill snakes and spiders who are minding their own business? In a gaming world where monsters are real and will eat wandering villages a player, or character, could make a very real argument that killing them is saving lives.
+1
You could take it a step further and argue that if he hadn't killed the dangerous predators, he would have been forsaking his responsibility to help people weaker than him. The OP is treading on a pretty grey area there with the wyverns.
|
|
Its not metagaming- its pragmatic.
That's the word I should've used in my original post - pragmatic.
That's the thing that really bugs me I think, is when every character becomes an unfeeling pragmatist.
To everyone coming in against me on this, I agree that murdering the wyverns in their sleep is the best tactical decision (I also want to point out that I am not the DM in the wyvern game). So is heading to the roof in a zombie apocalypse - those are really good ideas, and I applauded the PCs on their decision to find high ground and escape the zombies.
But when you're deciding whether or not to kill an intelligent Neutral being in its sleep, or whether or not to leave a friendly, helpful NPC to a certain grisly death, I as a roleplayer and GM would like to see at least a modicum of in-character debate on the subject, even if it is the best course of action.
With regard to the zombies, your case seems to be more that the players thought like intelligent people rather than horror movie characters. Such characters take actions that are dramatic but idiotic.
I fear your issue is not so much with metagaming, but with players not matching the fictional stereo/archetypes you envision for their characters.
You know, that's a fairly accurate assessment. I think a lot of the issue stemmed from the fact that the system itself was designed to model things like TV shows and films, and the real meat of the game was supposed to be in the character interaction and roleplaying.
|
|
Now on to the Zombies =
Were the players playing commoner, expert, warrior, or even adepts. If so, then you might have them role will saves vs the zombies to flee for 1d4 rounds, with a once per hour limit role.On the other hand, why would a wizard/sorcerer who shoots fire out of there hands or cause fear with a spell be afraid of zombies. What about a druid who at 4th level, TURNS INTO A BEAR. Even a fighter is use to wading into battle again orcs, gnolls, and trolls should not be any more fearful than normal vs zombies. Most Player characters are monsters in and onto themselves.
Agreed, but I do feel it's important to point out that the zombie game was not a d20 system game - the zombies in that game were custom made by myself, and posed a serious threat to the PCs. A single bite meant that a PC would almost certainly succumb to zombification at some point in the future, just as in most zombie flicks.
Actually, that presents a good example. In most zombie movies, you have one character that gets bitten, but besides the apparently superficial wound, he's fine.
Of course, this leads to a debate amongst the rest of the group. Some people want to go ahead and kill the bitten dude before he becomes a threat. Others won't stand for it. No matter which choice is eventually made, there is character interaction and a potential for plot or character development.
What drives me up the wall is in gaming groups where "kill the guy right now" is the default answer, and no consideration whatsoever is made for what the characters themselves would actually think about the situation. Or worse yet, all the characters are essentially automatons with no personality, simply going from place to place killing things and always making the most pragmatic choice. If one or two characters in a group are ultra-pragmatists, that can be interesting, but if everyone is, it's boring.
I have often been in parties such as this. In fact, there's been many times when I've been playing the tolerably-evil necromancer, or the dubiously amoral rogue, or the brash uncivilized barbarian, and I've felt the need to break character in order to object to a plan that called for torture, or wholesale slaughter, or callous disregard for the welfare of innocents, all because the capital-"g" Good characters were supporting it unflinchingly.
|
you have to make your NPC's more valuable alive than dead if this is the case. Sometimes you can get away with making them just likeable, so your players don't want them to die, but I rarely find this works in around teh table games (it seems more successful in PbP for some reason).
However, in the situation you descrbe above, if the guy/girl who was bitten is the only one capable of getting them into a secure facility becasue they know the keycode to the door lock, well, killing her immediately has all sorts of ramifications. It also adds a touch of "hurry up" to your story because they need to get her there before she turns. Maybe there's even the hint that a cure can be found there.
I think fi you playing with folk like this in games, the GM has to do a lot more background work in making some decisions harder to work out what is the optimal and most pragmatic approach.
As also pointed out earlier by others, let them make their decisions now, but have some later consequence enacted because of it. This makes a world more organic and your players will begin to take decisions more seriously than just "do it now to save possible trouble later." Instead it becomes "If we do this now, will it be trouble later". And then you have right where you want them.
As far as the specifics, IMO when attempting a zombipocalypse game, it's even more important than usual to specify whether you're looking for hack n slash splatter, horror movie, survivalist dream, or whatever feel you're going for. Your players may still disappoint you, but at least you're not guaranteeing that they're working off a different script.
Also, I think it's better roleplaying when dealing with things that are bigger than you with claws and poison and wings to prefer attempting to kill them while they sleep rather than being another psycho adventurer with no ability to feel fear trying to slap them around mano e draco.
However, that last I think is a similar point. There's an inherent psychotic fugue state to all PCs, since the players are not actually experiencing the horror or pain or empathy or pity or exhaustion, etc. Dedicated RPers might be able to overcome it, but it's still a hindrance, and all PCs will tend towards psycho brave, psycho pragmatic, immune to pain or fear when not a specifically statted out required response, etc.
I understand the OP and I agree with him.
However, that last I think is a similar point. There's an inherent psychotic fugue state to all PCs, since the players are not actually experiencing the horror or pain or empathy or pity or exhaustion, etc. Dedicated RPers might be able to overcome it, but it's still a hindrance, and all PCs will tend towards psycho brave, psycho pragmatic, immune to pain or fear when not a specifically statted out required response, etc.
True, but then again that is why people play RPG. Would i in real life grab a sword (even a +5 magic sword), and go out fighting a dragon or demon, or even a dire bear; NO Way. Would my character do it, YES.
Players want Adventure, exploration, and to do stuff they would never try in real life; because they might die, get hurt, or be jailed for.
I'm sorry that it's apparently metagaming when a character acts with reason rather than falling into a supposed and overplayed stereotype. So the Paladin wants to protect his party and slays the dragons. Whether or not it was very Paladin like is one thing, but that doesn't mean that it was metagaming.
The player is a player, they should be playing the characters that enjoy playing. You can't blame a player who wants to be tactical and brave to play that way and the DM shouldn't try to force them to. I may just be biting bait right now, but the game is about the players. If the players are seeing a very obvious trap that the DM set up, then the DM shouldn't be surprised if the player's come up with a logical reason to disarm it. It frustrates me when some DMs confuse a player who doesn't play up to their expectations with a metagamer.
Now if the player had said something along the lines of "Wyverns, this is obviously a trap set by the DM" that would be metagaming, but the Paladin came up with a very logical reason that the in-game character would come up with, "Those wyverns will probably be up and attack us when we come out, let's take care of them now".
|
|
As far as the specifics, IMO when attempting a zombipocalypse game, it's even more important than usual to specify whether you're looking for hack n slash splatter, horror movie, survivalist dream, or whatever feel you're going for. Your players may still disappoint you, but at least you're not guaranteeing that they're working off a different script.
The first step to getting a specific response from the players is figuring out what they want followed by showing them that the response you want will get them what they want.
These are both very good points.
I think it's true that many gamers game in order to play out things they can't do in real life. Sometimes it's the chance to be someone else with different strengths and weaknesses, sometimes it's the chance to do stuff that's simply not possible (like slaying a dragon with a magic sword).
I think it's entirely valid for that escapism to apply to decision making. That is, life is full of difficult decisions, and it's fun to be in a position where you can simply do what's best (for you, or your group, or whatever) without having to worry about the unfortunate consequences.
However, you really have to make sure you and the GM (and the rest of the players) are on the same page in that respect.
To be more precise, I guess my problem isn't so much with people that refuse to make in-character decisions, but with people that refuse to make in-character decisions when the expectation of the game is that people will be making in-character decisions. Another case of poor communication about the expectations of a game, I suppose.
|
How many real people kill snakes and spiders who are minding their own business? In a gaming world where monsters are real and will eat wandering villages a player, or character, could make a very real argument that killing them is saving lives.
Now the alignment aspects are a different matter... and is something you could discuss with your group at your table. But a predator that eats people given the chance is a threat that should be considered by players and probably eliminated.
Agreed. Killing large man-eating beasts in their sleep was the smart thing to do. Fighting the black knight in a sword duel is about honor; waking a bear before trying to kill it is about stupidity.
|
I'm sorry that it's apparently metagaming when a character acts with reason rather than falling into a supposed and overplayed stereotype. So the Paladin wants to protect his party and slays the dragons. Whether or not it was very Paladin like is one thing, but that doesn't mean that it was metagaming.
You're right, it was just bad Roleplaying was all, unless the player was doing so out of hopes to gain mechanical advantage via XP and loot rewards by killing said monsters. In which case I would don my best "Dad Face" and call him out for metagaming in an instant.
|
|
I'm sorry that it's apparently metagaming when a character acts with reason rather than falling into a supposed and overplayed stereotype. So the Paladin wants to protect his party and slays the dragons. Whether or not it was very Paladin like is one thing, but that doesn't mean that it was metagaming.
I call it metagaming because I don't see it as paladin-like. It's a very sensible thing to do if you're a guy playing an RPG, but it's not necessarily what the character would do. Acting on the player's knowledge of the game state (namely, that it is in fact a game) instead of the character's is why I call it metagaming.
The player is a player, they should be playing the characters that enjoy playing. You can't blame a player who wants to be tactical and brave to play that way and the DM shouldn't try to force them to.
Agreed on both counts.
I may just be biting bait right now, but the game is about the players.
Nope, I'm not trolling - just putting out my opinion in the hopes of starting a discussion and clarifying my point. :)
If the players are seeing a very obvious trap that the DM set up, then the DM shouldn't be surprised if the player's come up with a logical reason to disarm it.
Fair enough, but there's an assumption that there's a trap. Maybe it's not. Take the wyverns as an example. One interpretation is that they're a "trap" or challenge for the PCs, and if they're not killed now, they'll surely attack the PCs later. Another interpretation is that they are there for roleplaying purposes, and the PCs need to decide whether or not they're morally alright with killing them. Maybe they're supposed to be a resource - they're intelligent, maybe they have information the PCs could learn. And finally, maybe they are just set dressing to illustrate that this area is uncivilized and dangerous (they might even have been rolled randomly).
It frustrates me when some DMs confuse a player who doesn't play up to their expectations with a metagamer.
You're right about the expectations bit. Players and GMs need to be upfront with what they want out of a given game.
Now if the player had said something along the lines of "Wyverns, this is obviously a trap set by the DM" that would be metagaming, but the Paladin came up with a very logical reason that the in-game character would come up with, "Those wyverns will probably be up and attack us when we come out, let's take care of them now".
Now see, to me that sounds like someone justifying their metagaming. "Those wyverns will probably be up and attack us when we come out, let's take care of them now" is a very valid reason to kill them in their sleep, and it's valid as an in-game and out-of-game reason. However, if it's something that the character wouldn't do (or would at least find distasteful), I personally would prefer that the player at least acknowledge that fact somehow before continuing with the plan.
If the player doesn't want to have to deal with moral quandaries or be forced to make suboptimal decisions, that's fine. But he should make the GM aware that he doesn't want to play that kind of game (and if I wanted to open a can of worms, I'd say that in this example he shouldn't have been playing a paladin, but I don't want to open a can of worms, so forget I just said that :p ).
Now see, to me that sounds like someone justifying their metagaming. "Those wyverns will probably be up and attack us when we come out, let's take care of them now" is a very valid reason to kill them in their sleep, and it's valid as an in-game and out-of-game reason. However, if it's something that the character wouldn't do (or would at least find distasteful), I personally would prefer that the player at least acknowledge that fact somehow before continuing with the plan.
If the player doesn't want to have to deal with moral quandaries or be forced to make suboptimal decisions, that's fine. But he should make the GM aware that he doesn't want to play that kind of game (and if I wanted to open a can of worms, I'd say that in this example he shouldn't have been playing a paladin, but I don't want to open a can of worms, so forget I just said that :p ).
I'm not saying that it was right to do as a Paladin to take out wyverns in their sleep, which is why there is that game mechanic that rightly allows the GM to revoke all powers of the Paladin if they go against their code of honor. Living up to a standard is a real world thing.
As for justifying metagaming, it's right for the players to do. If they can explain why their characters in game would come up with a logical conclusion, then it's all good.
To determine if a character’s action is appropriate, have the player justify his decision using only information the character knows.
|
|
I think I'm using a different definition of "metagaming" than other people here are...
My definition is "making in-game choices that reflect the thinking of the player rather than the thinking of the character."
Examples: Searching for a secret door because you saw it on the DM's map. Opting to sleep outside in the rain and cold instead of paying for a room in a warm safe inn. Allowing yourself to be killed/bitten by some creature whose attacks can bestow ability-boosting templates. Coldly murdering an innocent child who is prophesied to become a tyrant.
The key to my definition is that the action taken by the character is something that character would be very unlikely to do under normal circumstances.
|
|
As for justifying metagaming, it's right for the players to do. If they can explain why their characters in game would come up with a logical conclusion, then it's all good.
To determine if a character’s action is appropriate, have the player justify his decision using only information the character knows.
Okay, fair enough, but "appropriate" is different from "in character".
Say you (in game, of course) kill your brother because he's standing between you and the treasure. Unless you're playing a character that would kill his family for profit, or there's something very unusual about the treasure or your brother, I call shenanigans - that, to me, is metagaming. It's justifiable using in-game knowledge, but it's the kind of thing that would be jarringly out of character if you were reading the story as a book or watching it as a performance.
Fair enough, but there's an assumption that there's a trap. Maybe it's not. Take the wyverns as an example. One interpretation is that they're a "trap" or challenge for the PCs, and if they're not killed now, they'll surely attack the PCs later. Another interpretation is that they are there for roleplaying purposes, and the PCs need to decide whether or not they're morally alright with killing them. Maybe they're supposed to be a resource - they're intelligent, maybe they have information the PCs could learn. And finally, maybe they are just set dressing to illustrate that this area is uncivilized and dangerous (they might even have been rolled randomly).
In most DM's settings these things are evil. I see no reason to not kill them if I was an adventurer that may have to cross their paths again. Now if nobody made the appropriate knowledge check or you did not hand the information over, they would have no way to know what they were. I only give descriptions of monsters when I run them until the correct knowledge check is made to identify them.
Why should I, as a PC, leave these things alive?
I think I'm using a different definition of "metagaming" than other people here are...
My definition is "making in-game choices that reflect the thinking of the player rather than the thinking of the character."
Examples: Searching for a secret door because you saw it on the DM's map. Opting to sleep outside in the rain and cold instead of paying for a room in a warm safe inn. Allowing yourself to be killed/bitten by some creature whose attacks can bestow ability-boosting templates. Coldly murdering an innocent child who is prophesied to become a tyrant.
The key to my definition is that the action taken by the character is something that character would be very unlikely to do under normal circumstances.
Those are also meta-gaming, bur maybe the player and character have a similar thought process. Even paladins have different personalities, so not all of them will handle every situation in the same way.
I understand where you are coming from Jagyr, and mostly agree with you. As a DM a lot of the time I end up stepping in to say "You don't know that" or "You didn't see/hear that".
In the example of the Wyverns, the questions come up as to:
Did someone detect alignment on them.
Did someone make a knowledge check to know even what they were, what their abilities are? Did the DM just say, "You see a pair of sleeping wyvern young"?
At which point was it clear that they were going to be a risk/threat to the party in-character?
if all these checks/balances were made in game, then they are right to assume a logical/tactical approach. Moral quandries aside that is.
In general when I begin a campaign I lay out my personal expectations for the game I plan on running. To include all kinds of XP benefits for roleplaying stuff. I award extra XP for backstory, and ask for a a list of 5 character traits and 5 dislikes. During play I make a mark for each time I see each trait/dislike get played out, and give 10 XP x level extra for each mark at the end of a session. I allow evil characters (only a few) and let them know it's because I love to see in-character in party conflict (not combat, but conflict).
Overall, it irritates me when I'm not running a game to see GM's let players walk all over the player/character knowledge line, but sadly all I can do is wait til I run a game to show them how I see it. It really comes down to the GM calling players out on it, for it to be handled accordingly. Some GM's just don't care, and could have put the wyverns there just to have a quick encounter to round out the XP balance, others would put them there to raise moral questions about sleeping enemies.
Yeah I don't care. Zombies are at the bottom of my "monsters to worry about" list, and for good reason. In the cold they freeze up, in the heat they explode and die, biting is the worse method of transmission of a disease possible, they rot and fall apart, their most dangerous predator is also their supposed prey...
Honestly the idea that a zombie apocalypse can happen is laughable in the first place.
That was SUCH a cool article. :D
|
|
Those are also meta-gaming, bur maybe the player and character have a similar thought process. Even paladins have different personalities, so not all of them will handle every situation in the same way.Examples: Searching for a secret door because you saw it on the DM's map. Opting to sleep outside in the rain and cold instead of paying for a room in a warm safe inn. Allowing yourself to be killed/bitten by some creature whose attacks can bestow ability-boosting templates. Coldly murdering an innocent child who is prophesied to become a tyrant.
The key to my definition is that the action taken by the character is something that character would be very unlikely to do under normal circumstances.
Like I said, "The key to my definition is that the action taken by the character is something that character would be very unlikely to do under normal circumstances."
If your character would do these things normally, fine. In that case, you just have an ultra-pragmatist character, which can be a fun foil to play against other characters, assuming you're playing a game where PCs have personalities and can have meaningful interactions.
First off, Jagyr, I agree that Metagaming can spoil a game and should highly be discouraged. The DM can't read the player's mind, so they should ask the player for why their character is doing what they're doing. If they can't give a reasonable answer, then you shouldn't let them do it.
As for justifying metagaming, it's right for the players to do. If they can explain why their characters in game would come up with a logical conclusion, then it's all good.
To determine if a character’s action is appropriate, have the player justify his decision using only information the character knows.Okay, fair enough, but "appropriate" is different from "in character".
Say you (in game, of course) kill your brother because he's standing between you and the treasure. Unless you're playing a character that would kill his family for profit, or there's something very unusual about the treasure or your brother, I call shenanigans - that, to me, is metagaming. It's justifiable using in-game knowledge, but it's the kind of thing that would be jarringly out of character if you were reading the story as a book or watching it as a performance.
That's just it though, a player's character is who they make them out to be. A player gets to decide his or her motives, not the DM. If they are motivated so much by cash that they'll go through family to get to it, that's their initiative. They should be noted as evil for such evil actions and would warrant some unwanted attention from any nearby Paladins. If their alignment wasn't already evil, explain to them that it has become evil; if they want to change it, explain to them the atonement process of doing good deeds. If they try to pass their character off as a kind person, explain to them that their character is deluded. Everything a player does from building their character, to roleplaying, to gaining treasure is for their enjoyment. If their goal to accomplish one thing is detracting from the roleplaying, the DM should help them find a role they are more fit to playing. It's not just the DM's story though, and the DM shouldn't try to force players into their roles, rather the roles should fit the players.
|
|
What you think a character unlikely to do under a given set of circumstances may not be the same as what I think the character is unlikely to do. This is why generally unless it is a clear cut case of player knowledge the character would not have, the player is usually given the benefit of the doubt that they are making the decisions that the character would.
Okay, this is a very good point. In these hypothetical situations, I haven't been giving the player the benefit of the doubt. And of course, unless some rule says otherwise, the player is always the final arbiter of his character's actions.
I guess the best way to approach it is with NPCs. Have the tavern owner or local clergy inquire as to the apparently out of character behavior. That will either call attention to the metagaming of a player trying to game the system, or give a sincere player the chance to develop his character within the world.
|
|
First off, Jagyr, I agree that Metagaming can spoil a game and should highly be discouraged. The DM can't read the player's mind, so they should ask the player for why their character is doing what they're doing. If they can't give a reasonable answer, then you shouldn't let them do it.
[...]
That's just it though, a player's character is who they make them out to be. A player gets to decide his or her motives, not the DM. If they are motivated so much by cash that they'll go through family to get to it, that's their initiative. They should be noted as evil for such evil actions and would warrant some unwanted attention from any nearby Paladins. If their alignment wasn't already evil, explain to them that it has become evil; if they want to change it, explain to them the atonement process of doing good deeds. If they try to pass their character off as a kind person, explain to them that their character is deluded. Everything a player does from building their character, to roleplaying, to gaining treasure is for their enjoyment. If their goal to accomplish one thing is detracting from the roleplaying, the DM should help them find a role they are more fit to playing. It's not just the DM's story though, and the DM shouldn't try to force players into their roles, rather the roles should fit the players.
I agree with everything you just said.
When did the hero kill the (neutral intelligent) henchman who guarded the entrance to the camp of the ennemy?
James Bond, isn't he lawful good in some sense? (tough certainly not a paladin) And there are a lot more examples. I do agree that it is doutful that that wyvern was a henchman, but it still fits the clichee.
And a licence to kill was easier to get in those times as today. Not many wyvern were citizens.
|
Just a quick side note with regard to Zombiepocalypse - many systems designed for cinematic zombie invasions include a fear mechanic, so people need to make rolls to stay focused. That way, unless they are all trained soldiers, the characters are going to have trouble being so tactical in such a stressful situation. If your players are unwilling to get into the minds of their characters without the mechanics mandating that they do so, and it's making play less enjoyable, fix the mechanics.
As to the paladin thing, alignment-wariness prevents me from replying.
-Drillboss
|
Hey Jagyr Ebonwood! How are things going?
I have enjoyed reading some of this thread, both because I can take a good guess at whom the DM was, if it wasn’t you, and who might have been playing the pragmatic paladin.
I also remember you describing to me the zombie game.
I have left Durham NC and I’m staying with my folks in DC for a couple of weeks. Next stop is NJ to see my big sister, for another couple of weeks. I will finally get back to VT I think around mid October.
Perhaps then I should roll up my sleeves and play a paladin with maxed skill ranks in sense motive.
I agree with your frustration with people playing “Good “ characters and not playing their alignment.
I think there has been a bit of a cultural shift. I remember 15 years ago or so, in the popular media, the only people who used torture were the villains. Period. It was something bad people did. Now with shows like 24, the “heros” use torture as a "legitimate” means of extracting information. People seem to be more willing to allow the means to justify the ends.
I remember, perhaps this was now 7 or 8 years ago, when I lived in NYC, before I moved up to VT, I was running the 3.0 module Forge of Fury. The party had a Duagar smith prisoner and they wanted information. One of the PCs immediately wanted to torture him for the information. All of the other PCs immediately stopped him. If they didn’t, I was going to.
Another example I can think of was when I was running the Desert of Desolation series (Pharaoh, Oasis of the White Palm, and The Lost Tomb of Martek). I had converted it to 3.5, and I was running it for 15 level characters.
There was one moment where the PCs found a prisoner, who was locked up and chained in a cell. They asked him where they could find the kidnapped princess (the daughter of the desert sheik) He told them. I think the prisoner was one of the mooks who helped kidnap her. Then as the party was leaving the sorcerer (15 level) cast a magic missile on the guy. We were all irked at this guy. It was fairly senseless. When asked why he did it he shrugged his shoulders and said, “I don’t know”
Later when the PCs returned to the Sheik to present their findings, get healed up and go onto the next chapter, the prisoner showed up and wailed “ oh mighty sheik, this man preformed foul sorcerery upon my person and almost killed me I beg for your justice for this wrong done to me”
The sorcerer pc shot back “ you helped kidnap the princess”
Next the sheik was the Imam. He had cast a detect lies spell.
The sheik demanded both parties to give their side of what happened. The Prisoner and the PC did so.
Then the sheik then asked the prisoner if he had a part in kidnapping his daughter. The prisoner replied miserably “ yes mighty sheik I beg for your mercy”
Then the Sheik pronounced judgment. To the prisoner he pronounced, “ You shall be executed by having your head cut off, for you part in abducting my daughter.”
Then the Sheik turned to the PC “ for your part in using foul sorcery, to harm and almost kill an imprisoned unarmed and helpless man who was no threat to you, for no apparent reason, 50 lashes. Let no one heal him of his wounds. They must heal naturally, so they can be a lesson to him.”
The PC smugly announced as he was being lead out to the post for his lashes, that he had a stone skin spell cast on himself, and he was going to cast a fly spell to leave these guys behind. He cast the spell and launched himself in the air.
The Imam dropped the PC literally. The Imam hit him with a greater dispel magic spell, which stripped the sorcerer of both, his fly and stone skin spells. After a 60’ fall into the sand, the PC sorcerer was seized, bound to a post, and whipped. The pc sorcerer passed out from the subdual damage.
Afterwards when the PC sorcerer went to the party Paladin (they didn’t have a cleric, hence the Imam NPC) the paladin said, “sorry I can’t heal you, the Sheik forbade it”
The PC sulked. He didn’t get it. He didn’t think the Sheik was fair to have him whipped and to have this prisoner executed. Especially since he felt he was “taking out the sheik’s trash”.
As a DM I decided to let the matter lie after that. I felt I had made my point, and the rest of the PCs at the table, seemed both satisfied and amused with that little “role playing” interlude. The PC sorcerer wasn’t permanently harmed, although he and his pride got a whipping.
I suppose the point of all of this long winded example, is that the other players around the table and myself were shocked that this player for no reason practically killed an unarmed prisioner after he had given the PCs the information they needed.
I think attitudes have changed. Now I see players and their characters much more willing to torture, or turn a blind eye to it. It almost seems as if some people’s attitudes are “ho hum time to get out the thumb screws” .
In a home game I was in in VT, I talked to the DM about my discomfort with the torture, and I asked, if he would refrain from putting our PCs in positions where we would need to resort to that tactic to get key information for the plot, his reply was that it was more “realistic” to have to resort to force to get information. I disagreed with him on that point.
There isn’t really a consequence for doing this. Certainly not a build in game mechanic. Perhaps this is a good thing. The only stick a DM has to smack badly behaving “goodly aligned” players is the “ if you do this your alignment will shift”
Now I know I am probably opening the old “Alignment Interpetation”. Can of worms. I do think that Alignment of a PC represents his overall tendencies and people have good and bad days just as “characters have good and bad days.
Anyways I began to ramble a while ago, and I should probably bring this post to a close.
Um now after looking things over, I realize I have subjected all of you to a rant, that was off topic. I apologize.
In closing Jagyr Ebonwood, I hope everything is going well.
|
|
I have enjoyed reading some of this thread, both because I can take a good guess at whom the DM was, if it wasn’t you, and who might have been playing the pragmatic paladin.
Hey Elyas! Long time no see. As it happens, the paladin/wyvern example wasn't from my personal experience; it was from this thread.
I can sympathize with your story of the sorcerer and the sheik. I was once in a campaign with a player that had a similar attitude. Once, we were in a gladiatorial arena to put on a demonstration of our abilities to the queen, and to impress/entertain the local populace. The Problem Player decided the best way to prove his abilities would be to use telekinesis to pick up a dozen swords and hurl them towards the box where the royal family was sitting.
Luckily he missed, and the queen had a personal wizard to stop the weapons from injuring anyone, but the Problem PC was immediately tackled by guards, and was about to be summarily executed on the spot, which is the legal penalty for attempting to assassinate the monarch. Luckily, the queen's younger brother (one of the other players) stopped the guards from killing him, but the player was so indignant about being tackled and imprisoned...he couldn't understand how his actions were inappropriate in the game world, and he kept accusing the DM of being "out to get him".
I get most of my best gaming stories from that guy.
In closing, looking forward to seeing you in mid-October :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think the 'meta' vs. the 'in character' can vary from player to player.
I'm very tactical when intiative is rolled, with a wonky photographic memory for RPG stuff. It's hard for me to remember to *not* rely on the data that bubbles up to my brain. I've gotten better at it, but at the same time, if a player doesn't remember what his character can do, is it Utilitarinism to tell the player?
Party's building a bridge, bad guys drop a grey ooze into it.
Me: (rolls knowlege check): Is that high enough to know how the ooze detects prey?
GM: Yes, you recall is hunts by vibrations.
Me: So if we were to use, say, ghost sound to generate the sounds of a thrashing deer, it would head towards that?
GM: Yes.
Party fighter: So the bard casts Ghost Sound!
Me: I don't have ghost sound.
PF: Well what was the point of that? you're our only spell caster.
Me: *rolls eyes* Yes, if only we had someone who could do ghost sound as, say, a racial ability...
Gnome Player: Who can do that?
Me: If only we had, well, a gnome...
As to violence, yes, the 'evil is cool' vibe is out there. I've lamented that we've lost a lot of heroes who make the hard choices rather than the easy ones. The teenager's solution to the sabotage from the other bridge builders? "let's just go kill the other bridge builders!"
|
|
Jagyr, Yeah we all have one of “those” players in our past. We may have even been one of “those” players.
I could fill reams of paper with his mis-adventures. The character was aptly named “Snaggletooth” the sorcerer.
For his 7th level spell, the player picked Mordenakainen’s Magnifict Mansion.
For the first time he got excited about something. He drew floor plans, he took the trouble to decorate it with laval lamps tie die wall hangings, Hookas, all sorts of 70’s paraphanalia.
When he invited the other players to come and sleep in his mansion, all the other PCs quidkly said, “NO” .
One weekend “Snaggletooth”’s player was away. Another player at the table ran the Sorcerer
I was Running the “Mud Sorcerer’s Tomb”. There was a water trap. This other PC had Snaaggletooth cast the mansion spell, so the doorway into the mansion lined up with the pipe that was spewing the water into the room. I thought this was an extremely creative use of the spell, so I allowed all of the water to drain into the extra dimensional mansion.
Then the player had the spell dismissed.
The next weekend, when Mr Snaggletooth returened, he asked everyone, “Ok where is the Tatoo on Snaggletooth? Any new piercings? “ Everyone said “Nope we didn’t do a thing”
Of course Mr. Snaggletooth didn’t believe anyone at the table, and got progressively more paranoid when he couldn’t find that anything had been done to his character. They even left his toad familiar alone. In a huff he said “fine” Snaggletooth then picked up his toad cast his Mordenkainen’s Magnificant Mansion spell and said “ Fine im going in here to chll out. ALONE”.
You can all imagine what happened next. The door formed, and burst open. Out flowed all of this water, which washed over Snaggletooth. Out flowed the sofas, the laval lamps the hookas everything.”
With a hurt expression on his face he turned to us and said “screw you guys”
To mollify him I told him he could simply recast the spell and everything would be put right.
Well since we're bringing up stories, I guess I might as well bring up my first game, 3.5. I was playing a half-elf fighter/rogue. We were hunting down a band of thieves. Earlier Tayl was chased by a big hairy half naked (pantsless) barbarian. (There's a long story of why he was pantsless that I'd rather not go into...) Well since our party leader was a idiot paladin he allowed the brute who nearly lopped my head off with a flaming great axe to adventure with us. So mixing revenge with tactical planning, Tayl, using her bluffing abilites spread a rumor. (This rumor was written on a piece of paper and given to the DM by me)
I had basically framed the Barbarian for taking out the other group and spread rumor of his sleeping location. I was going to stake out from an advantageous location and snipe them out. If the Barbarian got whacked, whatever... He was just a dangerous person to stay around anyway. (The player was just a power gamer anyway, he had a +11 to attack somehow at level 3! and actually did not RP anything other than attack my character :< )
My group consisting of a bunch of metagamers saw me pass the note to my DM and decided to do a gather information (which they would have had no inclination to do if they weren't metagaming) and changed the rumor to the barbarian left town. So I spent the night from atop a roof waiting to snipe some enemies but to no avail and got no sleep. D:
Yeah I don't care. Zombies are at the bottom of my "monsters to worry about" list, and for good reason. In the cold they freeze up, in the heat they explode and die, biting is the worse method of transmission of a disease possible, they rot and fall apart, their most dangerous predator is also their supposed prey...
Honestly the idea that a zombie apocalypse can happen is laughable in the first place.
You need to read World War Z. It was heavily researched and very well done and explained why fire is one of the worst things you can use on a zombie. Why? Because afterwords you have a flaming zombie walking around. The author goes into detail about the use of many military weapons that don't do a damn thing to a horde of walking dead because they rely solely on damaging vital organs that are, well, no longer vital. It also explore the socio-political effects a zombie outbreak might have. That and the bite isn't the sole method of transmission, if you get scratched, be it light or a deep wound, you're at risk of exposure to the disease.
Of course this is also dependent on the rules the zombies follow in the relevant game/book/movie. Some aren't disease based at all, others can run and think, if you look at the All Flesh Must be Eaten game there are numerous 'deadworlds' wherein zombies are a terrifying force indeed. One that stood out as being particularly freaky involved them being reanimated by nano-technology gone amok. Which eventually led to modern society being pushed back to a much more primitive era.
Attacking anything while it sleeps is a cowardly act and not worthy of a paladin. Whether or not he felt honor bound to protect the populace by removing the potential threat of the wyverns is not the issue. How he did so is the issue.
Why should you, as a visitor to another town, not swirve to hit the homeless man sitting on the side of the road?
Why should I, as a PC, leave these things alive?
You care to explain the connection here?