I think there is a bias towards creative ingenuity (diplomacy) compared to book learning (knowledge).
Particularly because a bit of social ingenuity is feasibly within most characters range (excluding ones with horrible mental stats) where as knowing the vorpal vulnerability of an adamntine golem isn't something everyone would logically know. Even with high mental stats, after all having 26 INT doesn't mean you read up the ins and outs of golems.
As many of you have noticed, the "Is the GM cheating" threads are pretty heated. One of the points brought up is changes to prevent metagaming.
I think of metagaming in the context of RPGs to be using your skills instead of your characters. Personally, I would let you do this because I like cool rules interactions.
However, I often see ingame rewards for player dialog in social encounters praised. To me, this is metagaming. Another consensus is that you shouldn't metagmine with respect to knowledge.
What makes metagaming Diplomacy so much better than metagaing Knowledge?
In any game, role playing or not, there's always going to be an element of a player's own skill and knowledge. There's literally no way to get around the fact that some players are just going to be more in tune with the tropes or rules of a game and will put them to use. This isn't a bad thing even if there is a metagamey aspect to it. Going to battle against all forms of metagame is probably futile, a waste of time, and ultimately counter-productive.
What you want to avoid is metagaming that damages the parts of the game you care for while not damaging the ones that enhance it. In the case of rewarding a good bit of player role playing in a diplomacy check or a good tactic in combat or even in a diplomatic check, you're rewarding the player's engagement with the game. This is a good thing. Fussing about a monster that has a slightly higher AC or more hit points probably isn't, particularly when a few unknowns in an encounter is probably better for the game overall since it keeps the players more in a state of suspense and tactically sharp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diplomacy metagaming is rewarded in some games because it's entertaining for the group if people have their characters say fun/clever stuff rather than just rolling dice, and the GM wants to encourage that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think where it bothers me is mostly in the case where a player has memorized every entry in the bestiary and everything that could add to, say, armor class. When a player believes that something is beyond what could be achieved using printed material, and they accuse the GM of malfeasance, I find that upsetting.
Specifically because it's the GM's prerogative to create new spells, items, feats, monsters, effects etc. that aren't in any book, and generally before giving players access to these things they're going to have to discover an antagonist using it first.
When a player knows automatically which save is the low one for every monster and doesn't bother with using knowledge checks to justify it, that's mildly irksome.
What is, however, acceptable is when a player makes an opposed sense motive check and my response is something like "as far as you can tell, he's not lying" and a player concludes "I'm still suspicious, [generally understood as duplicitous things] are frequent and talented liars." I mean, if the fiend really is telling the truth and the players are the one that end up betraying the fiend, that's as good an opportunity for the GM to cackle as anything.
I enjoy diplomacy metagaming and encourage it by giving players circumstance bonuses to rolls if they personally are convincing, eloquent, or funny. I do something similar with stunt descriptions in combat. I find this is less an issue with "clever humans are at an advantage" and more something that encourages people to try stuff, since there's no penalty for bad roleplaying just a bonus for good roleplaying.
I assume the distinction between "good" and "bad" meta-gaming varies wildly and it's something that should be discussed with the group either at the start of a game or as it comes up.
My only real irk is when players use character knowledge to gain a tacit advantage by ignoring an imposed penalty. Such as being the confused Wizard pulling out a light crossbow that he hasn't used in 8 levels to shoot at the 35 Ac fighter.
Or when a character has been blinded but they move and attack without making the appropriate perception checks.
Also bluff/sense motive checks, I would request of my players that they be reasonable and accept and roll with the results of their checks.
But on the whole though I find my personal tolerance to be wildly subjective and contingent on my mood and the situation at the time.
On sense motive vs bluff
If a players rolls sense motive vs bluff and gets told that the person is telling the truth, it doesn't mean they now implicitly trust that person and everything they say and pretty much every person who walked the earth has thought someone was telling the truth and it turned out that they were wrong.
As such in my opinion the idea that the player gets told that as far as they're concerned the person is telling the truth. It's a bit ridiculous to not expect them to still be suspicious of the general character given you're basically saying you failed a sense motive you now implicitly trust this person and your character is a gullible moron. Especially if they rolled of 2 on their sense motive. Their character flatly disbelieving something they should believe to be true is meta but remaining reasonably suspicious? I think not. After all they live in a world with shape shifting dragons and Rakshasa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only real irk is when players use character knowledge to gain a tacit advantage by ignoring an imposed penalty. Such as being the confused Wizard pulling out a light crossbow that he hasn't used in 8 levels to shoot at the 35 Ac fighter.
I'm not clear what the issue is here. Assuming the fighter is the nearest creature, that is entirely appropriate. (And actually slightly more dangerous than attacking the fighter with a dagger or even fist, which are also completely appropriate to the spell effect).
Confusion specifies 'attack' which is what he's doing. Casting a spell isn't a viable action under any confusion result except 'act normally.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As such in my opinion the idea that the player gets told that as far as they're concerned the person is telling the truth.
I'm universally in favor of telling players how things seem to be from their characters' perspective, rather than telling them the actual truth since characters ought to be as every bit capable as you or I are of believing something based on sense data when it turns out that the explanation they've arrived at for that sense data is not the true one.
I mean, if the players can't beat the Mimic's disguise check, you just say "as far as you can tell there's just an ordinary chest in the corner". Say the exact same thing if there is actually an ordinary chest in the corner.
My only real irk is when players use character knowledge to gain a tacit advantage by ignoring an imposed penalty. Such as being the confused Wizard pulling out a light crossbow that he hasn't used in 8 levels to shoot at the 35 Ac fighter.
I'm not clear what the issue is here. Assuming the fighter is the nearest creature, that is entirely appropriate. (And actually slightly more dangerous than attacking the fighter with a dagger or even fist, which are also completely appropriate to the spell effect).
Confusion specifies 'attack' which is what he's doing. Casting a spell isn't a viable action under any confusion result except 'act normally.'
The interpretation that we play with is "attack" is not specifying the attack action but rather that the creature must try to do harm to the nearest creature.
So the issue would a subjective one. In that the wizard hasn't ever used said crossbow ever or maybe did once at like level one. But still chose that option as it is obviously the most damaging despite having significantly better and more "logical" (from the perspective of a character who thinks the fighter is now an enemy) attack methods, like magic missile or fireball.
To clarify it's not cheating or anything it's a totally legal move, just one that personally leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On "realistic information," I run into the same ambiguity of neither always being better. Somebody who has been fighting on the frontier for much of their life is much more likely to know a troll is weakened by fire than how to talk to nobles. And yet, as in PossibleCabbage's examples, one seems to be clearly favoured and the other discouraged.
I tend to feel that if they're living adventurers, they aren't complete idiots, so they'd actually pick up information about threats.
On the other hand, nobles are just ordinary people that they can stomp into the ground (once past the first couple levels), so aren't particularly important. A lot of settings need better assumptions about the real impact of adventurers on society.
The interpretation that we play with is "attack" is not specifying the attack action but rather that the creature must try to do harm to the nearest creature.So the issue would a subjective one.
It isn't. It's totally a house rule issue. It's fine if that is how you established it, but you didn't mention it and from the spell text, that isn't how it works.
from the perspective of a character who thinks the fighter is now an enemy
I don't really agree with this either. The other options are babble insanely or 'cut self.' Clearly the character doesn't have a rational perspective of what is going on.
However, I often see ingame rewards for player dialog in social encounters praised. To me, this is metagaming. Another consensus is that you shouldn't metagmine with respect to knowledge.
What makes metagaming Diplomacy so much better than metagaing Knowledge?
I'm confused by the basic premise that RPing a social encounter and getting a result based on the things you say (rather than the roll) is metagaming...
"Metagaming knowledge" as I think you mean, is when a character has no reason to know something but the player does, and then has the character to act based on that knowledge.
But if the GM describes (lets say) an NPC guard refusing to let the characters through a gate and then the player walks up and comes up with a very creative or convincing argument, there isn't any "meta" knowledge. Everything the player is choosing for the character to do is a choice based on what the character knows.
On "realistic information," I run into the same ambiguity of neither always being better. Somebody who has been fighting on the frontier for much of their life is much more likely to know a troll is weakened by fire than how to talk to nobles. And yet, as in PossibleCabbage's examples, one seems to be clearly favoured and the other discouraged.I tend to feel that if they're living adventurers, they aren't complete idiots, so they'd actually pick up information about threats.
On the other hand, nobles are just ordinary people that they can stomp into the ground (once past the first couple levels), so aren't particularly important. A lot of settings need better assumptions about the real impact of adventurers on society.
It isn't. It's totally a house rule issue. It's fine if that is how you established it, but you didn't mention it and from the spell text, that isn't how it works.
The interpretation that we play with is "attack" is not specifying the attack action but rather that the creature must try to do harm to the nearest creature.So the issue would a subjective one.
Well, there are some nobles that drinks and know stuff, that's what they do... or so I heard. ;)
It isn't. It's totally a house rule issue. It's fine if that is how you established it, but you didn't mention it and from the spell text, that isn't how it works.
The interpretation that we play with is "attack" is not specifying the attack action but rather that the creature must try to do harm to the nearest creature.So the issue would a subjective one.
Within the context of that interpretation of the spell established by my group it's my own personal subjective issue.
Not that I'd force a player to use their most lethal method of attack, just that I take issue when they select a method with literally 0 chance of success in order to spare their ally damage. And then in another instance use say a disintegrate or fireball when they have to attack a foe.
As such in my opinion the idea that the player gets told that as far as they're concerned the person is telling the truth.I'm universally in favor of telling players how things seem to be from their characters' perspective, rather than telling them the actual truth since characters ought to be as every bit capable as you or I are of believing something based on sense data when it turns out that the explanation they've arrived at for that sense data is not the true one.
I mean, if the players can't beat the Mimic's disguise check, you just say "as far as you can tell there's just an ordinary chest in the corner". Say the exact same thing if there is actually an ordinary chest in the corner.
1) I'm typing from my phone there wasn't supposed to be a full stop their and the sentence doesn't actually make put across my opinion well at all. Probably make more sense with a semi-colon
2) not beating a mimics disguise check and then opening the chest is rather different from losing a sense motive against someone your suspicious of and thus ceasing to be suspicious entirely are vastly different things. As far as you can tell they're telling the truth =/= your character is no longer suspicious.
On "realistic information," I run into the same ambiguity of neither always being better. Somebody who has been fighting on the frontier for much of their life is much more likely to know a troll is weakened by fire than how to talk to nobles. And yet, as in PossibleCabbage's examples, one seems to be clearly favoured and the other discouraged.
I feel like the thing about "common knowledge" is that it's not necessarily universal. Someone who grew up underwater (e.g. a merfolk or gillman character) is most likely unfamiliar with how fire affects trolls.
If a player wants to tell a story about how the most popular story in their village growing up was how 50 years ago the town blacksmith defended the village from a troll with the red hot tools from his forge, or how they lost a parent in a troll raid, or how an uneasy truce was wrought with the nearby trolls based on mutual fear, then that player is contributing something to the story and the world and I want to encourage players to do that, so I reward them for it.
If a player wants to tell a story about how their character learned to fight trolls, or wants to actually extemporaneously make the same speech their character would make in that situation, I don't think that's metagaming so much as "the player is adding something to the game" and in cases like that I like to reward players.
Just saying "everybody knows how to fight trolls" is much less convincing to me. At least tell me how common you think trolls are. I want to reward improvisation and creativity, not "you read something in a book and remembered it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other problem with metagaming is that sometimes is subconscious
For instance the troll thing actually works as a decent example, a new player in my group that had never even thumbed through the bestiary but when he bumped into a troll he went straight to burning hands, we asked him how he'd known after the encounter was over and he realized he'd got the idea from a skyrim load screen. He didn't mean to cheat.
|
On sense motive vs bluff
If a players rolls sense motive vs bluff and gets told that the person is telling the truth, it doesn't mean they now implicitly trust that person and everything they say and pretty much every person who walked the earth has thought someone was telling the truth and it turned out that they were wrong.
As such in my opinion the idea that the player gets told that as far as they're concerned the person is telling the truth. It's a bit ridiculous to not expect them to still be suspicious of the general character given you're basically saying you failed a sense motive you now implicitly trust this person and your character is a gullible moron. Especially if they rolled of 2 on their sense motive. Their character flatly disbelieving something they should believe to be true is meta but remaining reasonably suspicious? I think not. After all they live in a world with shape shifting dragons and Rakshasa.
When it comes to Sense Motive Vs Bluff, I tend to fall in the category of Sense Motive = a Lie Detector Test.
What people forget is that a lie detector test has absolutely 0% chance to successfully tell if someone is telling the truth or lying, because to do that you must inherently know what the truth is. Rather a Lie Detector only determines if the person speaking actually believes he is telling the truth or not.
Example: Dave Chapelle's Blind Black Racist. This is a Blind black man who has been raised being told he's white. If you were to put him on a lie detector test (or sense motive him) when he says he is white. You would determine he is telling the truth. Obviously the man isn't white, so he's not actually telling the truth, he is merely saying what he honestly believes to be true.
So, when you sense motive someone, it does not mean you foolishly believe whatever nonsense the person just said is true, only that you believe that they actually believe it is true.
Otherwise... lvl 15 Rogue tells shopkeeper "I own this store. Leave before I call the guards to arrest you for trespassing!" Roll's bluff check 18+21=39. Shopkeeper rolls sense motive vs Rogues Bluff 2+8+20(circumstance, cause he's pretty sure he has a deed at home)=30. Shopkeeper response "Well, I could have sworn I had a deed at home, but it must be a fake because clearly the shop is yours. Please don't call the guards, I'll leave!"
Rogue just bluffed his way into owning a shop because he has a good modifier and the shopkeeper failed his check so has to believe what the rogue tells him is the truth!
Whether or not to comes from DnD or some other source if it's become a trope of fantasy as a whole I don't think the original source matters.
No
No
Dunno
Trolls being weak to fire is a concept that was introduced to me when I started playing D&D. Before D&D, my understanding of Trolls are that they're big, ugly, and mean. To this day, I'm not certain whether a Troll's fire-weakness is based on real world legend or not.
When it comes to subconscious metagaming at my tables, what I see more often is player knowledge of:
- A vampire's bloodlust and various weaknesses
- A werewolf's connection with the moon and weakness to silver
- A succubus's acts of passion being dangerous
- A phoenix's ability to resurrect
- A sphynx's association with riddles
- A unicorn's Good alignmentIf a PC can't make the requisite knowledge check, should they have access to the information above? If the player metagamed and acted as if the above knowledge were common sense, would your gaming experience be soured? In-game, is the above information common sense?
Those are tropes from real world myths and legends. Tropes that many who do not participate in this hobby know. Wouldn't it be the reasonable for people in the game world (Golarion or wherever), to know those tropes especially as they live in the world where those creatures DO exist? Like treating those really common tropes as DC 10 Knowledge checks (which anyone can make even untrained)?
Trolls being weak to fire is a concept that was introduced to me when I started playing D&D. Before D&D, my understanding of Trolls are that they're big, ugly, and mean. To this day, I'm not certain whether a Troll's fire-weakness is based on real world legend or not.
When it comes to subconscious metagaming at my tables, what I see more often is player knowledge of:
- A vampire's bloodlust and various weaknesses
- A werewolf's connection with the moon and weakness to silver
- A succubus's acts of passion being dangerous
- A phoenix's ability to resurrect
- A sphynx's association with riddles
- A unicorn's Good alignmentIf a PC can't make the requisite knowledge check, should they have access to the information above? If the player metagamed and acted as if the above knowledge were common sense, would your gaming experience be soured? In-game, is the above information common sense?
That depends upon the game world that the GM wants to set up. it might be kind of cool for the GM to come up with a list of Common Knowledge that the characters know by virtue of living in the world. but what your character knows is handled in game by knowledge checks; the result of the check is what you remember about the subject. although I'm perfectly happy to let the PCs remember previous encounters; so if they had fought a troll befor, they can remember that it's weak to fire without making a check.
However, I often see ingame rewards for player dialog in social encounters praised. To me, this is metagaming. Another consensus is that you shouldn't metagmine with respect to knowledge.
What makes metagaming Diplomacy so much better than metagaing Knowledge?
I'm confused by the basic premise that RPing a social encounter and getting a result based on the things you say (rather than the roll) is metagaming...
"Metagaming knowledge" as I think you mean, is when a character has no reason to know something but the player does, and then has the character to act based on that knowledge.
But if the GM describes (lets say) an NPC guard refusing to let the characters through a gate and then the player walks up and comes up with a very creative or convincing argument, there isn't any "meta" knowledge. Everything the player is choosing for the character to do is a choice based on what the character knows.
I disagree, the metagaming in this instance is more subtle but still there. Generally the player knows their GM very well and has a good idea of what strategy is most likely to work to convince them (bold move, out of the box idea, sob story, joke etc.). The character has never met the guard before and doesn't have that advantage.
I have GMed for players who are mildly autistic and I find that it is best to separate intent from execution when it comes to social interactions with NPCs otherwise you saddle them with a big disadvantage which can compromise their experience.
Trolls being weak to fire is a concept that was introduced to me when I started playing D&D. Before D&D, my understanding of Trolls are that they're big, ugly, and mean. To this day, I'm not certain whether a Troll's fire-weakness is based on real world legend or not.
But, I mean, if you're basing your understanding of monsters on legend, you might also conclude such erroneous things as:
- Trolls are turned to stone by sunlight
- Vampires cannot cross running water and must count obsessively
- A basilisk can be driven off by the crow of a rooster
- the Fae can be driven off with rowan or breadsticks
- A ghost cannot cross a line of salt
- A ghoul can be disabled simply by kicking it (kick it again and it gets back up though).
Et cetera.
Everybody at your particular table might have heard of the trolls and fire thing, sure, but they probably also have heard about vampires and garlic, streams, and piles of things. One of the things I like to do sometimes for characters with low knowledge scores is to invent incorrect weaknesses of monsters that my character believe because they heard it somewhere. So just throw a breadstick at a faerie every once in a while and see what happens.
1) surely if the player does this in every interaction it's not metagaming but rather a quality of the character
2) I don't think anyone is suggesting there should be a negative modifier for role playing a diplomacy check a little off tone. It's not a big disadvantage if perhaps another player told a witty joke in his roleplay that the DM lowers the check DC by 2 or something. One needn't even broadcast this to the table.
As many of you have noticed, the "Is the GM cheating" threads are pretty heated. One of the points brought up is changes to prevent metagaming.
I think of metagaming in the context of RPGs to be using your skills instead of your characters. Personally, I would let you do this because I like cool rules interactions.
However, I often see ingame rewards for player dialog in social encounters praised. To me, this is metagaming. Another consensus is that you shouldn't metagmine with respect to knowledge.
What makes metagaming Diplomacy so much better than metagaing Knowledge?
Speaking for myself when I GM: it is a deliberate bias to encourage roleplaying at the table.
I am mindful of the disadvantage that can place on certain players (shy people for example) so I coach them through social interactions and metagame where necessary to help them along. Basically try to improve their confidence and social skills so they can better participate.
I think the sunlight thing is true for mountain trolls as it happens. Never heard of the kicking a ghoul thing though XD
I am mindful of the disadvantage that can place on certain players (shy people for example) so I coach them through social interactions and metagame where necessary to help them along. Basically try to improve their confidence and social skills so they can better participate.
I think the thing to keep in mind when you want to give mechanical bonuses for roleplaying is that you never penalize someone mechanically or otherwise discourage them from doing it in the future if they do a bad (in your opinion) job. In some campaigns I just give a +1 bonus to any roll that is preceded by an attempt to roleplay it or a creative description of something, with higher bonuses available to particularly well-done attempts.
The point, I feel, is to encourage people to open up, since if other people quite obviously aren't afraid of looking ridiculous, people will hopefully figure out that this is a safe and supportive environment, which is the sort of thing I try to cultivate.
I mean, no one in a game I run ends up looking more ridiculous and embarrassing themselves more than I do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree, the metagaming in this instance is more subtle but still there. Generally the player knows their GM very well and has a good idea of what strategy is most likely to work to convince them (bold move, out of the box idea, sob story, joke etc.). The character has never met the guard before and doesn't have that advantage.
I have GMed for players who are mildly autistic and I find that it is best to separate intent from execution when it comes to social interactions with NPCs otherwise you saddle them with a big disadvantage which can compromise their experience.
But the player isn't trying to convince the GM, they're trying to convince the NPC. A decent GM should have a reasonable idea of what strategy will or won't work for a given roleplay interaction.
I absolutely agree that people who may be shy or have difficulty with social interaction in RL shouldn't be punished for it in roleplaying situations. I'm just saying that if someone does have a creative idea for a roleplay interaction, you should reward them for it.
I just don't see the point of the term "metagaming" if you say that just being creative in-character counts as metagaming.
I disagree, the metagaming in this instance is more subtle but still there. Generally the player knows their GM very well and has a good idea of what strategy is most likely to work to convince them (bold move, out of the box idea, sob story, joke etc.). The character has never met the guard before and doesn't have that advantage.
I have GMed for players who are mildly autistic and I find that it is best to separate intent from execution when it comes to social interactions with NPCs otherwise you saddle them with a big disadvantage which can compromise their experience.
But the player isn't trying to convince the GM, they're trying to convince the NPC. A decent GM should have a reasonable idea of what strategy will or won't work for a given roleplay interaction.
I absolutely agree that people who may be shy or have difficulty with social interaction in RL shouldn't be punished for it in roleplaying situations. I'm just saying that if someone does have a creative idea for a roleplay interaction, you should reward them for it.
I just don't see the point of the term "metagaming" if you say that just being creative in-character counts as metagaming.
In most cases you are correct. I don't subscribe to the idea that role playing = metagaming.
However, to use an example from our table: if I pursue a dialogue with an NPC that is outrageously silly I have one GM at our table who will grant a circumstance bonus and one who will grant a penalty for the same action. To use that player knowledge to my character's benefit is metagaming.
I disagree, the metagaming in this instance is more subtle but still there. Generally the player knows their GM very well and has a good idea of what strategy is most likely to work to convince them (bold move, out of the box idea, sob story, joke etc.). The character has never met the guard before and doesn't have that advantage.
I have GMed for players who are mildly autistic and I find that it is best to separate intent from execution when it comes to social interactions with NPCs otherwise you saddle them with a big disadvantage which can compromise their experience.
Players role-playing isn't metagaming.
I'm sensitive to people with autism. One of my neices is autistic. She has difficulty with certain things.
That doesn't mean we stop others from doing those things.
I'm confined to a wheelchair. I don't tell people they don't get to reap the rewards for being able to roller skate.
If a player role-plays well, they should be rewarded. Others who can't shouldn't be actively penalized but you don't take it away from those who do. It disincentives the people who role-play from putting for the effort.
That is like saying, in combat, a character can't get a +2 flanking bonus because another player lacks tactical awareness.
It might surprise you that I agree with what you have written.
What matters to me is effort not execution. I reward good roleplaying but I also reward genuine effort for those players who are not natural actors.
The general consensus to my previous question seems to be that very pervasive fantasy tropes may be treated as very low knowledge DCs that players should attempt before considering the knowledge common sense. I'm in agreement with this sentiment.
Here's another question I'm pondering with regard to the current flow of the thread: Suppose that in an intrigue-based game, a smart player of a stupid character (think 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha) has an out-of-character flash of insight to the current mystery based on clues presented throughout the campaign. Would you consider it metagaming for this player to present his insight in-character? Would the player presenting the solution hamper your gaming experience?
I don't know if I'd call it metagaming for him to give his idea in-character, but it might feel a bit awkward depending on how he roleplays it. On the other hand, I think it would almost definitely hamper the gaming experience of the player in question to not be able to share his idea. In the groups I've played with this would probably be resolved by having the player say, "Oh man, my character would never think of this, but I think I just figured it out," and sharing his idea with the group out of character. In story terms it could be glossed over with something like "the whole party put their heads together and discussed the problem and suddenly the dumb barbarian pointed out one minor thing that made it all fall into place for everyone else."
The general consensus to my previous question seems to be that very pervasive fantasy tropes may be treated as very low knowledge DCs that players should attempt before considering the knowledge common sense. I'm in agreement with this sentiment.
Here's another question I'm pondering with regard to the current flow of the thread: Suppose that in an intrigue-based game, a smart player of a stupid character (think 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha) has an out-of-character flash of insight to the current mystery based on clues presented throughout the campaign. Would you consider it metagaming for this player to present his insight in-character? Would the player presenting the solution hamper your gaming experience?
I would class it as metagaming, but not a metagaming problem.
We had a player who was good at solving riddles. When a riddle came up in play he usually solved it quite quickly. We did not object to his low intelligence ogre solving riddles in game. In character we called him the riddle master, it was a shame that he was dumb at everything else. The players that don't like riddles at our table had no issue because the riddle master would solve the riddles and we could quickly move on to the next thing.
I don't know if I'd call it metagaming for him to give his idea in-character, but it might feel a bit awkward depending on how he roleplays it. On the other hand, I think it would almost definitely hamper the gaming experience of the player in question to not be able to share his idea. In the groups I've played with this would probably be resolved by having the player say, "Oh man, my character would never think of this, but I think I just figured it out," and sharing his idea with the group out of character. In story terms it could be glossed over with something like "the whole party put their heads together and discussed the problem and suddenly the dumb barbarian pointed out one minor thing that made it all fall into place for everyone else."The general consensus to my previous question seems to be that very pervasive fantasy tropes may be treated as very low knowledge DCs that players should attempt before considering the knowledge common sense. I'm in agreement with this sentiment.
Here's another question I'm pondering with regard to the current flow of the thread: Suppose that in an intrigue-based game, a smart player of a stupid character (think 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha) has an out-of-character flash of insight to the current mystery based on clues presented throughout the campaign. Would you consider it metagaming for this player to present his insight in-character? Would the player presenting the solution hamper your gaming experience?
No, it's like giving someone a +2 bonus to attack rolls because they can do a lot of push ups.
That is like saying, in combat, a character can't get a +2 flanking bonus because another player lacks tactical awareness.
It's not a case of "I can do this, so my character can do this" but rather "If I say my character is doing a certain thing, I should receive the logical benefits of that action."
If I can think of a particularly plausible lie and I say, "My character tells the guard to let us in because X," the DC of the Bluff check should be lower than if the lie is something ridiculous.
Yes that gives a minor reward to someone who is creative IRL. But if I can't think of a good lie and my character has great Charisma I can probably still succeed on that check.
I absolutely agree that people who may be shy or have difficulty with social interaction in RL shouldn't be punished for it in roleplaying situations. I'm just saying that if someone does have a creative idea for a roleplay interaction, you should reward them for it.
As you explain it, rewarding one and not punishing the other looks identical to punishing one and not rewarding the other. Either way the DC is moved by X points.
Those are tropes from real world myths and legends. Tropes that many who do not participate in this hobby know. Wouldn't it be the reasonable for people in the game world (Golarion or wherever), to know those tropes especially as they live in the world where those creatures DO exist? Like treating those really common tropes as DC 10 Knowledge checks (which anyone can make even untrained)?
I wouldn't really require the check, except for strange and exotic creatures. Because yes, people do talk and absorb information. And PCs are doing this 'professionally,' so they have extra motivation to learn this stuff and associate with people who know it.
Without TVs and movies, entertainment comes form the social company of other people, exchanging information, stories and outright bragging. What to do with trolls and low-level undead is going to be a thing people learn alongside their native language.
As you explain it, rewarding one and not punishing the other looks identical to punishing one and not rewarding the other. Either way the DC is moved by X points.
I absolutely agree that people who may be shy or have difficulty with social interaction in RL shouldn't be punished for it in roleplaying situations. I'm just saying that if someone does have a creative idea for a roleplay interaction, you should reward them for it.So, you're saying, if someone is not good at tactics and can't understand that flanking provides a +2 to attack, then nobody in the group can get that +2?
It is very much the same thing.
Not even vaguely and not even vaguely. Nothing in the rules suggests the flanking bonus comes from being good at tactics, just that the opponent is distracted because someone is standing behind it and trying to stab it with a big honking knife.
Rewarding one person is not punishing another.
It is mechanically the same- the effect on the game is all I care about.
Nothing in the rules suggests the flanking bonus comes from being good at tactics, just that the opponent is distracted because someone is standing behind it and trying to stab it with a big honking knife.
Say I have two players. One of them is good at tactics and is playing a big dumb Barbarian. The other is bad at tactics and is playing a clever Tactician.
The Barbarian flanks whenever possible, and as a result is often rewarded with +2 to hit.
The Tactician forgets to flank all the time because the player is kinda dumb. As a result, he doesn't usually get the +2 to hit.
What is the difference between allowing the Barbarian to get +2 to hit because the player (not the character) is good at tactics, and giving him +2 to a Diplomacy check because the player is good at talking?
No, it's like giving someone a +2 bonus to attack rolls because they can do a lot of push ups.
That is like saying, in combat, a character can't get a +2 flanking bonus because another player lacks tactical awareness.
How else do you think Ronald the Rogue got his 14 Strength?
No, it's like giving someone a +2 bonus to attack rolls because they can do a lot of push ups.How else do you think Ronald the Rogue got his 14 Strength?
Probably through the character doing push ups, not the player.