Hypothetically Speaking:
A GM throws some animated objects at a party in which the witch PC blasts them with a lightning bolt, rather than using her sleep hex that she typically uses. Immediately the GM stops the game and accuses the witch's player of metagaming, citing that they hadn't even made a Knowledge check to know about their sleep immunity (being constructs). The player in question look at the GM like he's crazy. It seemed so internally logical to the player to assume that objects did not sleep that it was understood (to them) that even a 7 intelligence barbarian would just as easily have come to the same conclusion. Nevertheless, the GM forces the player to waste a round throwing out a sleep hex that neither the player nor their character believed would work.
/hypothetical scenario
At what point do you (as a GM and/or player) believe that metagaming begins and ends? How much power does a GM have when it comes to dictating PC actions?
I can see several groups passing through the above hypothetical scenario with no problem whatsoever (that is, nobody would speak up about possible metagaming) whereas other GMs might frown upon such actions and bring it up to the player after the game.
The above is a kind of worst case scenario, as I've never heard of such an overly sensitive GM, but I'm sure that they do exist in such extremes.
Discuss.
I don't think there is a single point at which metagaming begins and ends. For the most part, it's using knowledge that you're playing a game (rather than acting in the point of view of a character) that I think you enter metagame territory. I don't even considering using out-of-character knowledge as being inherently metagaming if it's something that a character in the game could know and understand.
In this case, "Bad DM, no cookie" applies. He acted stupidly. Is he going to dictate that you open all fights with an attempt at a sleep hex rather than lightning bolt? That would be patently ridiculous.
From the standpoint of being in character, maybe it's not 100% clear that an animated object would be immune to sleep - but I'd say it's an entirely reasonable assumption. If I'm attacked by a dancing bureau or running credenza, I'm probably going to think putting it to sleep would be silly. Who ever heard of a sleeping bureau? A napping credenza? Preposterous.
As far as DM's controling PC actions - I pretty much only do so if the PC is under some form of compulsion by my NPCs.
Your GM would be guilty of metagaming by forcing you to do something retarded. If my GM demanded that my character would not do such and such, he better have a VERY good reason.
As a GM I get kinda pissed at the constant hive-minding in my kingmaker campain, where the martials somehow always know what the casters are gonna do, including every parameter of the spell (Area of Effect, casting time etc), and ready/delay in order to make the most of it, without any means to communicate such complex tactics in combat (telepathic bond or similar). When I called them on it, one player insisted that they "train on spellcaster tactics in their downtime", but never make mention of it when they do have downtime.
Hypothetically Speaking:
A GM throws some animated objects at a party in which the witch PC blasts them with a lightning bolt, rather than using her sleep hex that she typically uses. Immediately the GM stops the game and accuses the witch's player of metagaming, citing that they hadn't even made a Knowledge check to know about their sleep immunity (being constructs). The player in question look at the GM like he's crazy. It seemed so internally logical to the player to assume that objects did not sleep that it was understood (to them) that even a 7 intelligence barbarian would just as easily have come to the same conclusion. Nevertheless, the GM forces the player to waste a round throwing out a sleep hex that neither the player nor their character believed would work.
/hypothetical scenario
At what point do you (as a GM and/or player) believe that metagaming begins and ends? How much power does a GM have when it comes to dictating PC actions?
I can see several groups passing through the above hypothetical scenario with no problem whatsoever (that is, nobody would speak up about possible metagaming) whereas other GMs might frown upon such actions and bring it up to the player after the game.
The above is a kind of worst case scenario, as I've never heard of such an overly sensitive GM, but I'm sure that they do exist in such extremes.
Discuss.
Glad to know it's a hypothetical, RD. Given that the character is throwing lightning, I assume he is at least mid-level, and experience has probably shown that sleep does not effect all enemies. If I further assume they have average or better intelligence, it's not a great leap of intelect to guess that you can't put the chest of drawers to sleep. So, no I wouldn't call that metagaming.
I define metagaming as deliberate or unconscious use of knowledge the player has but the character does not have.
As a player I fight hard, and usually successfully, against the urge to metagame, but know that I have transgressed at times.
As a GM, I try not to interfere with what decisions the players make for character actions. I will, however, occasionally ask a pointed question about how a character would know to do something. Usually that (and peer pressure from other players) suffices in our group to make the metagamer amend their actions. If it doesn't suffice, I'll usually let it slide and then try and engage in a discussion of metagaming and why it harms a campaign either after the game session or before the next session.
In the past, in some cases where metagamers refused or couldn't stop themselves, I've taken measures like insisting they make an appropriate Knowledge check before allowing a particular action.
In extreme cases in my distant past, I've gone so far as to use all non-standard, homebrew monsters and encounters to counter unrepentant repeat metagamers. That's a lot of work, though.
I'd say a limited amount of metagaming is fine as long as the player can justify it from an in-character perspective (generally, justifications that involve the player's voice inflecting upwards and getting quieter toward the end won't do). When in doubt, use Knowledge or other skill checks as appropriate.
For example - let's say my character's an opportunistic rogue who performs dirty tricks when an opponent is distracted (I.E. he performs combat maneuvers whenever the target has already taken their AoO for the round). If, before closing in melee, he sees someone make more than one attack of opportunity in a round (which I imagine would involve the person in question striking quickly and reflexively, possibly without even looking at the target fully), he'd probably rethink that strategy, as they won't be able to catch the target off guard.
From a metagame standpoint, it's the player finding out that the potential target has Combat Reflexes, and waiting for them to take their only AoO won't work. This kind of metagaming is fine, I think.
Another method might be to use the "carrot" rather than "stick" method - if the player knows a certain tactic wouldn't be effective, but knows their character doesn't know that, and uses it anyway, they should be rewarded with bonus experience. Sure, just about everyone knows about trolls and fire/acid in the gaming world - but if trolls are a rarity that nobody knows about in the campaign world, and the players deliberately hold off on using fire or acid attacks until they would normally (if at all), then I think that's an attitude that deserves praise.
As so often, there isn't a real point, or line in the sand here, just a gradual transition.
But if you insist: If common sense and/or common knowledge of someone living in the reality we play our games in will not give me the answer, it's probably metagaming to assume stuff.
For this particular case: I'd say it's common knowledge among spellcasters AND common sense that mind magic will not work on constructs.
This GM would go insane if he ever play with my girlfriend. :)
She always plays chaotic characters and hell, they are chaotic.
She never use the same spell twice in i fight and alwaysw have some creative ways of using a spell (e.g. enlarge a monster, so it's stuck in the corridor)
To topic: this wasn't Meta-Gaming, just logical thinking. Even if a character use silver weapons against Werewolf this isn't Meta-gaming, it's folk lore.
Call somethings Metagaming is always a thin line.
As so often, there isn't a real point, or line in the sand here, just a gradual transition.
But if you insist: If common sense and/or common knowledge of someone living in the reality we play our games in will not give me the answer, it's probably metagaming to assume stuff.
For this particular case: I'd say it's common knowledge among spellcasters AND common sense that mind magic will not work on constructs.
+1.
In fact, whenever I have a new player playing a spellcaster and they cast a spell that a creature (or creature type) would be immune to, I immediately ask them for a Spellcraft check, then inform them that they know the spell would be wasted.
To answer RD's more general question:
At what point do you (as a GM and/or player) believe that metagaming begins and ends? How much power does a GM have when it comes to dictating PC actions?
To the one: as others commented, it's a transitional line. As to how much power does a GM have to dictating PC actions... none. Zero, nada, niet.
If a GM starts telling me how my character is acting, I stand up, kindly thank them for their time, and leave. (There's some exceptions to this - horror games, for example, or situations where a character is compulsed/otherwise not in control of their faculties.)
hmm metagaming to me is the lvl 3 fighter with a 8 int telling the party they need a magic weapon to beat the gargoyle.....
using knowledge your character wouldn't have.
in response to the hypothetical situation...why would anyone be of the mindset that you would alwyas use sleep hex every time?
the biggest meta gaming I'm used to dealing with is player 1. decides to do specific skill check to look for/figure something out, and player 2. says "oh i want to do that too". or a more recent example...
two players are doing something in building A) on one end of town and suddenly another player decides that he has a feeling he should go to build A) even though he is alway the way accross town and has no reason to be there.
Metagaming is not bad. Like most things, it can be used for good or for ill, and be constructive or destructive. In it's constructive mode, metagaming is absolutely necessary to any RPG.
Why would any character learn a feat that they never use, which is a prerequisite for a later feat they want?
I could give you dozens more, but I'm sure you can think of plenty yourself.
The important question is not, "Is this metagaming". The important question is, "Does this make the game better or worse?" And closely tied to that, "Is this believable?" because totally unbelievable things generally make the game worse.
For an example, I turn to the D&D classic, the Rakshasa!
For many years, a rakshasa could only be killed by a blessed crossbow bolt. (Now they have 15/good and piercing, which is quite a bit weaker.) Of course, both crossbows and blessed weapons were quite rare among competent adventurers, especially those of high enough level to encounter a rakshasa.
Scenario 1, bad metagaming:
Upon downing a rakshasa the Fighter with INT 10 who has never fired a crossbow in 10 levels of adventuring, and who has never encountered or explicitly heard of such a creature, digs in his backpack, pulls out his single blessed crossbow bolt, and stabs the unmoving beast, killing it. The GM's recurring enemy is now dead, the rest of the adventure is derailed, and the interesting bit of lore (how to kill a rakshasa) that was planted for the mage, now that's just trivia.
Scenario 2, no metagaming:
The party fights and defeats a rakshasa. Later, the party fights and defeats another rakshasa. Later, the party fights and defeats another rakshasa, who seem to be quite angry. Later, the party fights and defeats another rakshasa, who seem to really have it out for them. The fifth time the party fights a rakshasa the GM, rather annoyed at this point, says, "It's the same @#$% monster! Everyone give me a perception roll. Did anyone roll above a 5? Good! You can tell this is the same one you've been fighting all month!"
Player says, "Well, sure, we all know that, but our characters don't."
Scenario 3, good metagaming:
Upon downing a rakshasa, one of the characters resolves to ask about the strange beast. Upon returning to town, he searches the library at a local temple and discusses his encounter with a local sage, learning some old myths about the creature called a "rakshasa" . . . game proceeds any number of ways from there.
It would be silly for a character to research every single beast encountered in a dungeon, and quite tedious for the DM and the other players. Add a touch of metagaming, and everything can remain both fun and believable.
As so often, there isn't a real point, or line in the sand here, just a gradual transition.
But if you insist: If common sense and/or common knowledge of someone living in the reality we play our games in will not give me the answer, it's probably metagaming to assume stuff.
For this particular case: I'd say it's common knowledge among spellcasters AND common sense that mind magic will not work on constructs.
Yeah, I'm not crazy about metagaming, but I like anti-metagaming even less. By that, I maen PCs that deliberately do counter-productive things (e.g. trying to poison an undead skeleton) just so the player can avoid even the whiff of metagaming.
the biggest meta gaming I'm used to dealing with is player 1. decides to do specific skill check to look for/figure something out, and player 2. says "oh i want to do that too". or a more recent example...
two players are doing something in building A) on one end of town and suddenly another player decides that he has a feeling he should go to build A) even though he is alway the way accross town and has no reason to be there.
Ugh. I've had this go both ways with the same player, same character in my current group. At one point the party was split up doing some gathering of information around town. One group hit upon a lead, and so our trusty barbarian announces "I come walking up the street to see what's up." Right at that exact time. Sure, it was nice to have the party together nice and quick, but it was a strain on the suspension of disbelief.
Then later, the party is separated again (sigh) but not too far, just around a couple of corners in a dungeon. Barbarian is checking a room that he heard a noise from, but it's empty. Another lucky perception check reveals scrape marks on the floor, probably indicating a secret door. About 4-5 rounds later, while the rest of the party is dealing with an ambush, he's still looking for the trigger mechanism instead of going off to let the Rogue, who is actually good at this sort of thing instead of just lucky, know of what he's discovered.
Metagaming is a fine line. In this case, sure, he had no idea that there was a fight going on a couple of moves away so the player didn't want to run back over there for fear of it looking like metagaming. Instead though, he decides his character is stubborn and not a team player, traits that we hadn't seen up to that point.
Yeah, I'm not crazy about metagaming, but I like anti-metagaming even less. By that, I maen PCs that deliberately do counter-productive things (e.g. trying to poison an undead skeleton) just so the player can avoid even the whiff of metagaming.As so often, there isn't a real point, or line in the sand here, just a gradual transition.
But if you insist: If common sense and/or common knowledge of someone living in the reality we play our games in will not give me the answer, it's probably metagaming to assume stuff.
For this particular case: I'd say it's common knowledge among spellcasters AND common sense that mind magic will not work on constructs.
I've done that once or twice. Know what I've learned? It really DOESN'T make the game any better.
the biggest meta gaming I'm used to dealing with is player 1. decides to do specific skill check to look for/figure something out, and player 2. says "oh i want to do that too". or a more recent example...
two players are doing something in building A) on one end of town and suddenly another player decides that he has a feeling he should go to build A) even though he is alway the way accross town and has no reason to be there.
Ugh. I've had this go both ways with the same player, same character in my current group. At one point the party was split up doing some gathering of information around town. One group hit upon a lead, and so our trusty barbarian announces "I come walking up the street to see what's up." Right at that exact time. Sure, it was nice to have the party together nice and quick, but it was a strain on the suspension of disbelief.
Then later, the party is separated again (sigh) but not too far, just around a couple of corners in a dungeon. Barbarian is checking a room that he heard a noise from, but it's empty. Another lucky perception check reveals scrape marks on the floor, probably indicating a secret door. About 4-5 rounds later, while the rest of the party is dealing with an ambush, he's still looking for the trigger mechanism instead of going off to let the Rogue, who is actually good at this sort of thing instead of just lucky, know of what he's discovered.
Metagaming is a fine line. In this case, sure, he had no idea that there was a fight going on a couple of moves away so the player didn't want to run back over there for fear of it looking like metagaming. Instead though, he decides his character is stubborn and not a team player, traits that we hadn't seen up to that point.
I find both these examples happen all too regularly, in our D&D game the party splits up all the time and i cannot remember the last time we had a fight when the whole party contributed.
Worse still under a different GM we end up being persuaded to split up to investigate different leads. Then of course one group find the plot and everyone else just has to wait. I find it more frustrating when these are the most tactically sound options.
I'm really easy on this issue as a DM. Mainly I just want to know what kind of game the players want here and then I'm going to give it to them. So, if a meta-game event comes up I'm not going to stop it, instead I'm going to make fun of the player doing it (this, here is my sarcastic voice) and attempt to gauge what the other players around the table think.
If everyone wants to play a game where their characters know, on some level, what the players know about the D&D world then that's fine - if not, well that's fine too, but there needs to be some consensus from the group. Either case will change how I build encounters. I'll shy away from big bad's with well known significant weaknesses if the players want to meta-game but I'll probably give them more lesser encounters where they can use this knowledge since it seems clear that identifying the monster and discussing it is part of the fun of some of the players at the table and I sure ain't here to ruin their fun. I just want my fun too and that means my Big Bad needs to actually be scary.
"meta-gaming"
"i roll a 17 to hit the goblin, I hit because it only has an ac of 14, I rolled 9 damage, it's dead because they can only have 7 hit points!"
if a witch is high enough level to cast lightening bolt, she has some experience with her powers, using sleep on moving furniture? thats just plain stupid.
choosing to use an adamantite dagger against something with DR/adamantium when you always swing with your mithral sword...thats meta gaming.
last year we ALL got killed by a medusa. one by one.
Because a) we werent warned about the monster and b)our charcters had never fought a gaze attack monster and well c) (we all failed our saving throws)
had we ran in there and all averted our eyes and swung at her blindly? it would have been metagaming.
If some old geezer had told us before entering the dungeon, "beware the eyes of the snake hair woman" it would have been a different story.
When it makes one party want to cry "That's bull!" is a good guideline IMHO. Anything that shatters suspended disbelief by focusing on mechanics is where I start taking note. It is a roleplaying game, even if combat is all about numbers.
In many ways it comes down to the nature of the game: Are the players metagaming to 'beat the GM'? (a futile, but strangely popular, exercise), or are they metagaming because they're thinking of their characters as themselves (see 'faraday cage' example above)? Or are they metagaming to make the story flow (example from a previous post of the barbarian suddenly arriving on the scene of action).
A good breakdown.
It also comes down to how common knowledge is in the setting.
I once had a player call BS on me because my bard took an evil priest's holy symbol stating "That should stop him from casting a good number of spells," demanding how I would know that.
To which I responded "Every single priest works the same way. All divine magic works this way. It's literally a law of the universe."
Now, let's say the DM had something sneaky planned where that wasn't true, the correct response isn't to get pissy at the player, it's to make the player wrong. You cast sleep on the constructs and it works. The divine caster smiles and casts his spells anyways.
Given this scenario, it is not metagaming. The player never said as a player "they are immune to sleep." If he had, I would say, "u don't know that for sure. Make a Knowledge Arcana roll."
The player can use any spell or ability they have whenever they would like unless inhibited in some fashion. It may not always work but they do have a choice in what they do.
If the gm accused the player, he shouldn't have forced her to waste a round casting sleep, but instead given her a skill check to see if they were asleep, but either pass or fail, she could still have casted lightning bolt. She's got the slot, and she wants to cast it, nothing says she can't. If she wanted to cast lightning bolt at nothing, she can do that. Nothing in the rules says she has to cast sleep first at nothing because that's what she usually always does.
Not sure how this qualifies even remotely as meta-gaming, if it's within the character's personality to evince curiosity about an unusual foe.Scenario 3, good metagaming:
Upon downing a rakshasa, one of the characters resolves to ask about the strange beast. Upon returning to town, he searches the library at a local temple and discusses his encounter with a local sage, learning some old myths about the creature called a "rakshasa" . . . .
You just quoted half of my example.
I'm talking about a character that doesn't routinely spend 20 minutes of talk-time investigating every strange monster, perhaps even a character who has never gone to the local sages or library to investigate a monster. I think it's reasonable for even such a character to all of a sudden develop a desire to research cat-beasts. Why? Because it's plausible and makes a better game.
It's a bit of metagaming to all of a sudden gain a 'monster research' hobby after 10 level of not having any interest in the subject.
At what point do you (as a GM and/or player) believe that metagaming begins and ends?
With the exception of extreme cases I’m not entirely convinced that it’s possible to know what qualifies as metagaming, which makes determining this in most cases all but impossible. For example, I’ve never seen a dragon or a werewolf but if I saw one I’d likely recognize them and they aren’t even real so why wouldn’t my character that lives in a world were they exist.
To give a more meaningful example, consider that I personally have no degrees in zoology or anything like that yet I can identify cats, canines, whales, etc even giving specific types like lions, tigers, and panthers. Keep in mind that I don’t need to know any of this to survive or protect myself from them and most don’t even live anywhere in the area that I do. In fact I can identify quite a few animals I’ve never even seen in person just from pictures I’ve seen.
So if I’m now an adventurer in a fantasy world why wouldn’t I know about most of the creatures that run around in the world, especially those that live in my area and may potentially pose a real threat to me? Sure there are situations in which a character probably shouldn’t know something but as I said except for extreme cases how can you really know what a player character would or would not know?
Also as Blueluck mentioned above, metagaming is not always bad, particularly when used to keep the story flowing despite the fact that the characters might have normally done things differently like leaving a PC behind rather then letting them join the group.
While I suppose that I can understand why a GM might dislike players using their knowledge I rarely ever find it a problem. In fact I sometimes use it against them, such as running into a green dragon that has made himself look like a red dragon and cast spells to protect himself from cold.
I also sometimes add templates or create unique creatures that resemble other creatures. For example, a creature that seems to be a werewolf attacking during full moons etc. but is actually a type of shape shifting fey using a werewolf form as a cover. When the players run into it they attack with silver weapons when actually what they need is cold iron.
Mind that I don’t do these things a lot, just often enough that my players know making assumptions can be dangerous if they aren’t careful. Meanwhile when they do recognize creatures and fight them appropriately I’m actually happy they are learning about the world, especially if they’re still fairly new to the game, but maybe I’m strange in that regard idk.
How much power does a GM have when it comes to dictating PC actions?
Virtually none. As a rule that I believe should rarely if ever be broken a GM should never take control of a PC’s character. Even when under the effects of charm spells and such I simply let the player know and let them play it. If I need to override something I explain why and tell them they cannot do something but still let them play it and decide what they do as long as they abide by the restrictions placed on their characters behavior. I'd say that the only control that should ever be exerted should be in the form of restrictions to their behavior and even then they had better have a good reason.
In fact I’d even go so far as to say that given that GM’s control the entire universe and all the NPC’s within it they should leave the PC’s well enough alone unless they want to play by themselves in which case the players really don’t need to be there. Personally, I’m almost always a GM but in the event that I get to play for a change I consider a GM trying to control my character a good reason to find a new game.
To give a more meaningful example, consider that I personally have no degrees in zoology or anything like that yet I can identify cats, canines, whales, etc even giving specific types like lions, tigers, and panthers. Keep in mind that I don’t need to know any of this to survive or protect myself from them and most don’t even live anywhere in the area that I do. In fact I can identify quite a few animals I’ve never even seen in person just from pictures I’ve seen.
While I agree with what you are saying, I have to point out that we (modern information based society) have *huge* advatanges over 'medieval' (for lack of a better word) societies.
We have Discovery Channel.
We have mandatory public education.
We have Photography.
I agree with you because PCs are not born into a vacuum: They know about the parts of the world they are familiar with. (An in-game example of this is Druid's Wild Shape) This is partly a Knowledge check and partly an assumption on our part. For example, a fellow from the woods would know about bears and deer and wolves, but will probably not know about tigers and wombats. I suppose this makes character origin even more important ;)
There are expansions on what a PC could be expected to know: a Druid or Ranger would know more about the natural world--even with never having seen either a drawing or a book about them our woodland ranger may know (from talking/training with mentors) about the wondrous whale called Orca. But Mr Fighter? Nah, it's a big black and white fish.
In short, if a PC has a *reason* to know than yeah, she knows. If not, then no. Or, make it a Knowledge-XYZ Check :)
In the OP's example: it's a flippin table! I am not casting sleep on it. Now, is it a talking table? "Hello How Are You?" Then maybe... unless I pass this Knowledge Arcana Check ;)
GNOME
The short answer for the witch is for her player to fix the GM with a cold eye and say, "It's made out of wood, right? Wood burns. Lightning should do nicely."
As for all the other metagame knowledge, I long ago told my players, "You are free to use all the knowledge you know as players from reading the various game books. Those are the stories they told you in the tavern. This," I say as I thump a large pile of books of folklore, "is the actual lore, some of which I'll be pulling out in game, and which your characters are only going to find out through research or unpleasant encounters."
On the occasions when the folklore books don't have what I'm looking for, I'll make up something likely, like saying that it's not just any crossbow bolt that can kill a rakshasa, but it has to be one made from the wood of a sacred tree from its native land--let's say sandalwood--and related to that I'll come up with some reasonable bit of related lore that the smoke of the sacred wood is also baneful to the backward-handed tiger demons. So, yeah, sandalwood incense works as Dust of Sneezing and Choking on rakshasas, sending them into horrible asthmatic fits. Who knew?
That info will be available to those make the appropriate knowledge check. Those who botch? (I allow botches for Knowledge checks.) They come up with some garbled traveler's tale where the way to destroy a rakshasa is with wooden sandals. Yes, the rakshasa must be clogged to death.
While I agree with what you are saying, I have to point out that we (modern information based society) have *huge* advatanges over 'medieval' (for lack of a better word) societies.
We have Discovery Channel.
We have mandatory public education.
We have Photography.
Well for me this is only partially true, the way I view things, while our society developed technologically, fantasy-based societies developed magically. As for how far they developed, that depends entirely on the individual fantasy world you are playing in.
So a mandatory public education depends on the kingdom and/or world you grew up in and photography may be easily replicated by magic, for that matter so could TV and the discovery channel though I freely admit to never having taken it that far.
The point I’m making is that while I do understand your points and recognize them as being perfectly valid arguements, the differences between a magical society and a technological one are not necessarily that great. Also, I do tend to play in a similar fashion to what Kevin Andrew Murphy stated...
As for all the other metagame knowledge, I long ago told my players, "You are free to use all the knowledge you know as players from reading the various game books. Those are the stories they told you in the tavern. This," I say as I thump a large pile of books of folklore, "is the actual lore, some of which I'll be pulling out in game, and which your characters are only going to find out through research or unpleasant encounters."
Actually something I forgot to mention in my previous post is that I tend to think it’s more fun to play this way. For example, as a player would you rather run into a werewolf and “pretend” not to know how to fight it only to “figure it out” later after researching it, or would you rather run into the werewolf I mentioned in my earlier post that’s actually a shape changing fey and actually have a mystery you don’t know the answer to?
Personally, I like not knowing things and having to figure out what’s going on or what works and what doesn’t for myself and I like knowing something and being able to use it in the game to my advantage but I don’t generally care for knowing something but pretending to be ignorant. While I recognize that there are situations where it may be necessary, for the most part I prefer to let players play freely because I think it makes for a better game most of the time. Of course this is purely my opinion so you may disagree.