Metagaming: Utilitarianism vs. Interesting actions


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

stonechild wrote:
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.

A paladin is a soldier in many cases, sometimes a general of some king's army. To paraphrase myself from another thread, if you choose to tap the enemy(not use a better way to attack for the purpose of honor) on the soldier and end up losing half your army when you could have been tactical(sneaky), you better be prepared to make a high diplomacy check when addressing the king and/or the people.

I know attacking a wyvern is not the same thing as leading an army, but the same logic of letting someone know you are there is described as lawful stupid. Fighting people face to face is bad tactically, and has nothing to do with honor. If you can kill them from 200 yards, feet etc away then you should do so. If they are sleep kill them in their sleep. The idea of face to face fighting was actually a mindf*&k made up by nobles so peasants would not attack their knight with ranged weapons. I will try to find the thread that goes into detail on it.


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

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've noticed that in certain games where the PC's are always a cut-above the rest (i.e. Where city guards are never anything more than 1st level warriors and rulers tend to be NPC's with levels of Arisocrat and maybe a level of some PC class), I've some players get a sense of entitlement and might even enjoy throwing their weight around. In such a game you might find a PC getting snippy with a King or Queen and say things like 'psh, that's -all- you'll give me for this mission? *eye roll*' or upon returning from said adventure with tons of gold and magic items in their possession 'I nearly got killed in that life and death mission we knowingly went on for you, I want double to agreed upon reward!'

That's a situation where you might want to encourage said player to seek out another group or downright kick them out entirely. I've, unfortunately, had to put up with such players at times due to bonds of friendship getting in the way, though thankfully it's not as prevalent these days. That entitlement still rears its ugly head now and then making me long for one of those more realistic systems rather than level based games where combat is actually risky and dangerous to characters.


DM Doom wrote:
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

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've noticed that in certain games where the PC's are always a cut-above the rest (i.e. Where city guards are never anything more than 1st level warriors and rulers tend to be NPC's with levels of Arisocrat and maybe a level of some PC class), I've some players get a sense of entitlement and might even enjoy throwing their weight around. In such a game you might find a PC getting snippy with a King or Queen and say things like 'psh, that's -all- you'll give me for this mission? *eye roll*' or upon returning from said adventure with tons of gold and magic items in their possession 'I nearly got killed in that life and death mission we knowingly went on for you, I want double to agreed upon reward!'

That's a situation where you might want to encourage said player to seek out another group or downright kick them out entirely. I've, unfortunately, had to put up with such players at times due to bonds of friendship getting in the way, though thankfully it's not as prevalent these days. That entitlement still rears...

I give my kings hi-level bodyguards. They might be able to kill the bodyguard(s), but most likely at least one player will be taken out before the fight is done.


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

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.

This is not metagaming. This is the GM taking the players character away and essentially forcing him to play according to the way the GM wants him to. Railroading is more akin to what you are describing. You see the player is the character no matter which way you slice it, he defines how his character acts, regardless of what you want, and regardless of how you feel about the character. Anything else and you might as well be playing by yourself. In the example you cited the only way the wyverns were not a tactical threat (200 ft. away) is if the players had a serious case of stupidity going on, or the Paladin had an Int of Drool-1. Then it would be metagaming since the character would actually be too stupid to realize there was a threat. Amusingly enough the module this is from specifically states that they are a threat and will ambush the players as soon as they are lulled into a false sense of security. I think the GM of that game has a similar sense of what metagaming entails, the player playing his character the way he wants instead of how the GM wants. You have a world of NPC's to be examples why take a hammer to someone having fun?


Ughbash wrote:
Bestiary wrote:

Wyverns are nasty, brutish, and violent reptilian

beasts akin to more powerful dragons. They are always
aggressive and impatient, and are quick to resort to
force in order to accomplish their goals......

Although constantly hungry and prone to mayhem, a
wyvern that can be befriended (usually through a delicate
combination of f lattery, intimidation, food, and treasure)
becomes a powerful ally.

Wyverns are what I would descrube as Neutral Hungry, they are a dangerous predator that should be killed. If they did not kill it there would be more harm to the neighboring farms in the form of eaten cattle, Horses, villagers.

As a LG person paldin or not, I would want to rid the country of such a menace. I would dispatch it the same way I would dispatch a Python that I found asleep near a nursery or orphange. It is too dangerous to be allowed to live. I would not want the death of a baby on my conscience just because a Neutral Python was hungry.

Glad to know we're not the only group to use the Neutral Hungry term to describe those beasts that, although not evil, are still extremely dangerous predators that might need to be put down for the safety of all.

I actually have little problem with the paladin's actions, and I'm known for being a stickler for paladin alignment issues. Paladins don't have to be stupid. In my mind it isn't particularly more honorable to wake the wyverns up before dispatching them.

The OP gave some good examples of metagaming elsewhere, but this doesn't strike me as a strong example.


Kerym Ammath wrote:
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

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.

This is not metagaming. This is the GM taking the players character away and essentially forcing him to play according to the way the GM wants him to. Railroading is more akin to what you are describing. You see the player is the character no matter which way you slice it, he defines how his character acts, regardless of what you want, and regardless of how you feel about the character.

As I stated previously, two of the examples from the selection you quoted are textbook metagaming.

I have ridden the DM Limited (and I do mean Limited) departing on track 4. So far no actual railroading has been discussed. Jagyr's perception of actions being out of character could be used as a justification for railroading, but cooler heads seem to have prevailed. Actions may have consequences that the player didn't anticipate, but players still have the option to make those choices and not be forced to make the one the DM wants. Still, it is good to remind everyone how locking in preconceptions about how someone's character should be played can lead down the dark track.


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

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...

The most egregious example of this is a cleric leaving his dear friend and comrade for dead while he attacks because the player calculates that attacking is a more logical choice than healing. Unless you have consistently been playing the character as a maniac, sociopath, or Vulcan, no way.

Liberty's Edge

The greatest example of Utilitarianism/Metagaming I ever saw was a PC trying very hard not to kill the other PC when we met for the very first time in that tavern brawl/ambush. Because if it were a NPC doing the same suspicious things, he would have gotten rid of him without a second thought.

But, if we did not metagame this way, most of us would be hardpressed to get a group of various PCs staying together, much less facing terrible dangers and sharing hoards with near complete trust.

Utilitarianism does have its part in the game.

Silver Crusade

Ion Raven, thank you for sharing the story about the barbarian who was enjoying life without patnts

WWW,
Just so I understand your point of view, and the point you are making, is that there is an inconsistency, or perhaps, a bit of hypocracy, in my, on the one hand, complaining about people being more tolerant of torture, and on the other hand, within the same post, telling about a time where I was DMing, and to “teach” the PC a lesson by having his character endure the “corporeal punishment of a whipping” which is in actuality merely another form of torture, for senselessly casting a magic missle spell and almost killing another NPC? Does that sum the point up?

Yes I can see how that is inconsistent.

Liberty's Edge

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

WWW,

Just so I understand your point of view, and the point you are making, is that there is an inconsistency, or perhaps, a bit of hypocracy, in my, on the one hand, complaining about people being more tolerant of torture, and on the other hand, within the same post, telling about a time where I was DMing, and to “teach” the PC a lesson by having his character endure the “corporeal punishment of a whipping” which is in actuality merely another form of torture, for senselessly casting a magic missle spell and almost killing another NPC? Does that sum the point up?

Yes I can see how that is inconsistent.

I don't think it is. My main concern is being true to the character you're presenting in the game. The sheik's official corporal punisher is within his character to administer whippings. The PC sorcerer was not (I'm assuming that the PC wasn't an advocate for torture until torture become expedient and useful to the player).

Liberty's Edge

The black raven wrote:

The greatest example of Utilitarianism/Metagaming I ever saw was a PC trying very hard not to kill the other PC when we met for the very first time in that tavern brawl/ambush. Because if it were a NPC doing the same suspicious things, he would have gotten rid of him without a second thought.

But, if we did not metagame this way, most of us would be hardpressed to get a group of various PCs staying together, much less facing terrible dangers and sharing hoards with near complete trust.

Utilitarianism does have its part in the game.

This is why I usually prefer the methods that start groups off as already having been together for awhile. I particularly like the systems where a player comes up with a backstory for his PC, and then works each other PC into a specific story within that history.


When I realize a character is metagaming in an unreasonable way (a little bit of metagaming is just swept under the table) I radically change up my adventure so that his assumptions actually lead him into greater danger or down an unexpected route. This usually leaves my players scratching their heads and leads to more exciting play.

You have to be subtle about it however. ;-)

Of course the biggest metagaming I've ever seen is from a player who had actually read the adventure (not me) and didn't tell the GM. He then proceeded to stuff up every carefully laid ambush and derail every plot device. The GM had no idea what was happening.

It was mean, but it was priceless.


ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Ion Raven, thank you for sharing the story about the barbarian who was enjoying life without patnts

WWW,
Just so I understand your point of view, and the point you are making, is that there is an inconsistency, or perhaps, a bit of hypocracy, in my, on the one hand, complaining about people being more tolerant of torture, and on the other hand, within the same post, telling about a time where I was DMing, and to “teach” the PC a lesson by having his character endure the “corporeal punishment of a whipping” which is in actuality merely another form of torture, for senselessly casting a magic missle spell and almost killing another NPC? Does that sum the point up?

Yes I can see how that is inconsistent.

Basically though I was not assuming deliberate hypocrisy rather just that there was something that seemed to have been overlooked.


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

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...

Ironically, unless said Queen`s-Younger-Brother PC had demonstrated a pacifistic tendency or opposition to the death penalty, or specifically felt that this apparent assassin was `special` (and thus took part in their interrogation to find out who was truly behind them, etc), I would say that the player of the Queen`s-Younger-Brother PC was clearly the one meta-gaming.

Obviously, to a degree that`s a type of meta-gaming that makes for cohesive gaming groups, but I think it hilights an important point: Alot of what the OP may be complaining about is not meta-gaming at all, but simply socio-pathic character personalities (which CAN co-incide with meta-gaming, but doesn`t have to).

Certainly in a game where all the PCs are either GM-written or are created within tight bounds, there is alot of expectation to fulfill certain character roles, and diverging from those will suck, basically. But most gaming groups I`ve seen DON`T WORK LIKE THAT... Certainly metagaming cooperation plays a big part in writing up the character concepts, but ultimately each PC is free to play ANY ROLE whatsover, from party leader, selfish mooch, scaredy cat who holds back but saves the party when it counts, etc...

As others have already said, people change, and having cathartic experiences like D&D adventures tend to include in copious amounts, can bring out sides of people that they normally don`t exhibit. What I`m getting at is that instead of getting hung up over `Their character wouldn`t do that`, getting overly fixated on some static concept of who their character is, ADAPT and respond to their character`s newly revealed nature. Imagine if you as GM introduce an NPC to the group, and they at first seem very helpful just like an NPC henchmen... only slowly it`s realized that they have their own agenda, are perverting the party`s aim`s, etc... Great Plot right? Well, why shouldn`t other party members respond like-wise if they discover the Evil tendencies in their midst?

SO... for the clear-cut meta-gaming, i.e. mis-use of out-of-character knowledge (and I think it helps for the GM to always be proactive about letting players know what their characters know, e.g. using Knowledge skills even when players don`t call for it because it`s something the character would know), definitely deal with it directly. But this other stuff that actually isn`t a meta-gaming issue, but simply an issue of WHO THE CHARACTER IS, can be dealt with via in-game role playing. Unless you`re playing a type of game where players are expected to portray specific roles like a movie, there shouldn`t be any problem in discovering that Sorceror X has a more sadistic side than first thought, or whatever. Obviously, classes like Paladins and Clerics have class ability limits on their actions, but for the rest it doesn`t really matter mechanically how they act, IT ONLY MATTERS FOR THE OPINION/REACTIONS OF THE NPCs AND OTHER PCs. Alignment is something that is free to change, however you as DM adjudicate that, so you shouldn`t get up tight just because characters are doing things that might change their Alignment.

...On the other hand, I totally get your problem with essentially Evil-minded characters (torture, etc...). But again, assuming a Heroic Good Guys type of gaming, isn`t the point of the game confronting Evil, and just like the Infiltrator NPC example I gave, why can`t the group (including GM/NPCs) confront problematic characters in-game? Obviously, that can get tedious if you have a player who will only play sociopathic types, and in such cases it`s probably best to have a group discussion about what type of game you`re playing and what type of characters you need... And if said player can`t create / enact a character who doesn`t disrupt the group, maybe they aren`t a good match for your group.

Liberty's Edge

Quandary wrote:
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Luckily, the queen's younger brother (one of the other players) stopped the guards from killing him...
Ironically, unless said Queen`s-Younger-Brother PC had demonstrated a pacifistic tendency or opposition to the death penalty, or specifically felt that this apparent assassin was `special` (and thus took part in their interrogation to find out who was truly behind them, etc), I would say that the player of the Queen`s-Younger-Brother PC was clearly the one meta-gaming.

Yup, it was in-character for him. The Prince had a personal investment in the other PC. He (the Prince) was the one that had gone on an expedition to a foreign land where he had recruited the sociopath PC to help on a mission. I think there was a lot of "Wait, don't kill him! That's just how they do things in his country!"

Ironically, later in the campaign, we were traveling along a narrow path next to a drop off of at least a mile (veeeeeery high cliff). Trying to cause trouble for the umpteenth time, Sociopath PC shoves Prince PC over the edge. Luckily, another party member and I were able to effect a daring mid-air rescue using a cape of flying and a grappling-hook crossbow. Once the Prince was safely on land again, he threw down the gauntlet and challenged the Sociopath to a one-on-one fight to the death. The Prince won initiative and killed the Sociopath in a single blow, and threw his body off the cliff.

Grand Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:

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.

Someone reads Cracked magazine. :-D


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

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.

I think that you have to be very careful here as you easily stray into telling a player how to play their character.

Also in your example you don't give enough information to determine whether or not there was any metagaming involved.

For example:
- If we don't face them we'll loose xp./They are easy xp.
- The DM put them there for a reason, we better not kill them out of hand.
- We haven't had a combat all session.. let's go.
- Let's not bother it will take too much time to roll initiative/etc

Would fall under metagaming.

Meanwhile:
- We have a chance to get rid of a danger to others at little danger to ourselves.
- ARRG Smash!

Would not fall under metagaming.

Now you seem to confuse metagaming with poor roleplaying, when you are talking about being consistent in-character. I do not see the two as the same, although there is a great overlap between them obviously.

-James


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Ironically, later in the campaign, we were traveling along a narrow path next to a drop off of at least a mile (veeeeeery high cliff). Trying to cause trouble for the umpteenth time, Sociopath PC shoves Prince PC over the edge. Luckily, another party member and I were able to effect a daring mid-air rescue using a cape of flying and a grappling-hook crossbow. Once the Prince was safely on land again, he threw down the gauntlet and challenged the Sociopath to a one-on-one fight to the death. The Prince won initiative and killed the Sociopath in a single blow, and threw his body off the cliff.

Awesome. :-)

Liberty's Edge

Quandary wrote:
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Ironically, later in the campaign, we were traveling along a narrow path next to a drop off of at least a mile (veeeeeery high cliff). Trying to cause trouble for the umpteenth time, Sociopath PC shoves Prince PC over the edge. Luckily, another party member and I were able to effect a daring mid-air rescue using a cape of flying and a grappling-hook crossbow. Once the Prince was safely on land again, he threw down the gauntlet and challenged the Sociopath to a one-on-one fight to the death. The Prince won initiative and killed the Sociopath in a single blow, and threw his body off the cliff.
Awesome. :-)

The PC and the player had both run out of patience with the sociopath. I think we ended up killing him 3 times that campaign because he was being such a douche...I don't know why he kept coming back.

Liberty's Edge

If you don't like what your PC's are doing, and you feel they are playing the meta-game instead of the real game, I suggest using the world to react as a real world would to the PC's horrific actions. Have NPC's follow up on them and ask about their activities. Make sure they don't magically know everything the PC's are up to (unless they... you know... really do have that magic), but let the PC's know that they can't hide their actions from the real world.

Don't be afraid to show some of that emotion yourself. Be shocked when the PC's decide to murder something. Be horrified when they act like common thieves.

And above all, make sure you reward those players who are "doing it right" in your games with extra time in the spotlight. Make sure you give a generous amount of speaking encounters with NPC's. Maybe even give out a little treasure or a few action points for particularly good RP'ing, or extra XP. IC incentives go a long way towards securing the kind of behavior you want to see.

Liberty's Edge

Lyrax wrote:
And above all, make sure you reward those players who are "doing it right" in your games with extra time in the spotlight. Make sure you give a generous amount of speaking encounters with NPC's. Maybe even give out a little treasure or a few action points for particularly good RP'ing, or extra XP. IC incentives go a long way towards securing the kind of behavior you want to see.

I recently decided to implement an action point style reward system into my games for the sole purpose of rewarding non-mechanical deeds (good roleplaying, contributing to the group outside of the gaem, etc).

Of course, now I need the spare time and players needed to run such a game...*sigh*

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Metagaming: Utilitarianism vs. Interesting actions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion