So after reading a few threads, it seems like everyone has a different view of this. What does every one think "meta-gaming" is? Where is the line between playing the game and Meta-gaming?
Using OOC knowledge to benefit your character/party IC.
So after reading a few threads, it seems like everyone has a different view of this. What does every one think "meta-gaming" is? Where is the line between playing the game and Meta-gaming?
I'd go with the simplest definition, using any knowledge that your character shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't/doesn't have to affect (effect? I always get those mixed up) in game actions.
This can include rules, statblocks, story knowledge gleaned from other sources etc.
Using OOC knowledge to benefit your character/party IC.
The entire game is played at the Meta level, using OOC knowledge.When does it become a problem for you is what I am getting at really.
A cleric asking how hurt someone is ok or not ok? Should the DM keep track of all hit points to prevent the character from knowing how close to death they are? A round is 6 seconds, but most tables will spend a few minutes per round doing things. Should we just write down what we are doing at the same time and flip them over then go into initiative order to resolve everything?
A cleric asking how hurt someone is ok or not ok?
For me, this should be role-played out as free action speech. If the cleric wants exact information 'i'm on 6/27hp' the cleric should be using the status spell... I don't enforce this in PbP as its a hassle.
Should the DM keep track of all hit points to prevent the character from knowing how close to death they are? A round is 6 seconds, but most tables will spend a few minutes per round doing things. Should we just write down what we are doing at the same time and flip them over then go into initiative order to resolve everything?
This isn't metagaming to me, this is play style and organisation. I draw the line when someone shouts out 'use XXX, YYY is weak to XXX' with no knowledge checks or hints...
I'd go with the simplest definition, using any knowledge that your character shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't/doesn't have to affect (effect? I always get those mixed up) in game actions.This can include rules, statblocks, story knowledge gleaned from other sources etc.
I am right there with you. I have only really had it be a problem with newer players, and the skill checks have really helped with this IMHO. Our groups are pretty easy on this, and it rarely is an issue. It mostly comes up in the form of, "Hey cleric, your channel energy will heal the bad guy too!" being shouted from the 8 int barbarian.
On a side note, this nearly lead to a player getting killed twice in one night by the same snake. The couple of people who knew what was happening never let on, until the snake rose up and smacked the newly rolled cleric. Fun times.
I am right there with you. I have only really had it be a problem with newer players, and the skill checks have really helped with this IMHO. Our groups are pretty easy on this, and it rarely is an issue. It mostly comes up in the form of, "Hey cleric, your channel energy will heal the bad guy too!" being shouted from the 8 int barbarian.
On a side note, this nearly lead to a player getting killed twice in one night by the same snake. The couple of people who knew what was happening never let on, until the snake rose up and smacked the newly rolled cleric. Fun times.
I've seen some amusing things when a player with meta knowledge refuses to use it to remain in character. The best was one of my players (playing a halfling druid) encounter a variant ooze he turns to me and says " I know what this is...but unfortunately for x(his character) he dosen't [sighs] I stab it with my +1 cold iron dagger..."
I think metagaming is kind of like pornography, about which former Supreme Court Justic Potter Stewart famously said "I know it when I see it." It's hard to define, but I think most GMs/groups/players have a line somewhere that they prefer not to cross with regard to using OOC knowledge. The line as to what is fair play and what crosses the line into metagaming will be drawn at different places by different GMs/groups/players.
Personally for me, it's not too much of a problem with our group, so I have a pretty light hand as a GM, only gently asking a player if their character would realistically have that information, and on rare occasions asking someone to make a relevant Knowledge skill check to validate some knowledge they want to act on. That's all that is needed in my group.
I am right there with you. I have only really had it be a problem with newer players, and the skill checks have really helped with this IMHO. Our groups are pretty easy on this, and it rarely is an issue. It mostly comes up in the form of, "Hey cleric, your channel energy will heal the bad guy too!" being shouted from the 8 int barbarian.
On a side note, this nearly lead to a player getting killed twice in one night by the same snake. The couple of people who knew what was happening never let on, until the snake rose up and smacked the newly rolled cleric. Fun times.
I've seen some amusing things when a player with meta knowledge refuses to use it to remain in character. The best was one of my players (playing a halfling druid) encounter a variant ooze he turns to me and says " I know what this is...but unfortunately for x(his character) he dosen't [sighs] I stab it with my +1 cold iron dagger..."
This happens all the time with our group. 4 of the 7 of us have been playing the game for more than 25 years, and 3 of us GM, so we have a vast amount of knowledge about stuff like monster vulnerabilities that our characters would not have. I have to consciously decide to not use OOC knowledge every time I play. Sometimes it is so tempting, though...
I mostly see it as a character being "genre-savvy".
"We're on a task for the Pathfinder Society. There've already been five fights, so it's likely that this next room is going to be our last fight of the day, probably against some serious butt-kicking monster."
I would add cases of characters having "lucky hunches".
"I don't know that the flying evil woman with the rope is a devil, but maybe I'll just use my oil of Bless Weapon and/or silver arrows anyways, just to be on the safe side."
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I had a wonderfully long-winded reply all typed out, then my internet farted when I clicked "submit". *sigh* Here's the short version:
There's a sliding scale of metagaming - at one end is stuff like a character somehow knowing that at level 1, being half dead only requires a Cure Light Wounds to remedy, while at level 3-4 he needs a stronger Cure spell for what would feel like the same amount of hurt. But no one gripes about that.
At the other end is taking 20 to search a room where the player knows there's treasure, and not even opening the door to another room where a player knows there's nothing. Most people have a problem with that.
And somewhere in between, there's other stuff (like telling the cleric how many hit points you're missing) where people's opinions are kind of split.
There are probably as many places to draw the line as there are players, so best to be a little flexible with the people around you.
Yes, that was the short version. ;)
|
I think it's worth making a distinction between positive and negative metagaming.
For example - the party have never met before session #1, but Bob and Sue have conspired to create characters who will butt heads at every opportunity in order to facilitate in-character banter and other roleplaying. This is clearly meta, but it's to the likely benefit of the game.
1) Knowing what creatures do, what their weaknesses are, and how to fight against them.
Players can't keep their faces out of the bestiary. :-)
(and many of them have GMed before)
2) Cursed items are often involved with metagaming. It usually goes like this:
"Sarah got this cool new ring. Sarah begins acting strangely hours later. Ring is cursed."
3)Finally, this metagamer tactic is ALWAYS used. If they cannot succeed at noticing something, their behavior changes even though they should be oblivious. This happens often because I believe characters should have the excitement of rolling their own dice.
It always goes like this: "Roll a perception check...(they fail so I describe what is clearly there)
You see a hallways spread before you with a rug. On either side, there are shields hanging on the walls.
From here, players will often do something crazy like attack the shields, or light the carpet on fire, or start buffing with spells, or start casting spells to help them spot things (knowing that they just failed a spot), or simply turn around, or send their familiar to be a decoy for something they don't know is there.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the problems with the use of the term 'metagaming' is that a lot of the time one is taking on the role of a character who is smarter, wiser, more perceptive, more tactical, etc. than the player themselves. A wizard with superhuman intelligence doesn't play by the same rules as a normal human player - and any attempt to use one's character's vast intelligence in a beneficial way gets decried as 'metagaming' (unless your GM is really fastidious with ability checks).
As such, I think it's really dependent on the player. A player using an 8 Int Barbarian shouldn't be employing any out-of-character knowledge. A player using a 20 Wis, 20 Int Wizard really should be allowed to use some out-of-character knowledge to account for the Sherlock Holmes-level deductive ability such a character would doubtlessly be possessed of (unless, again, your GM really plays up having high stats as more than just some numerical value).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As such, I think it's really dependent on the player. A player using an 8 Int Barbarian shouldn't be employing any out-of-character knowledge. A player using a 20 Wis, 20 Int Wizard really should be allowed to use some out-of-character knowledge to account for the Sherlock Holmes-level deductive ability such a character would doubtlessly be possessed of (unless, again, your GM really plays up having high stats as more than just some numerical value).
This should be represented by high amounts of skill points (check) and high modifiers to them (check); and a roll for that matter.
This should be represented by high amounts of skill points (check) and high modifiers to them (check); and a roll for that matter.
As such, I think it's really dependent on the player. A player using an 8 Int Barbarian shouldn't be employing any out-of-character knowledge. A player using a 20 Wis, 20 Int Wizard really should be allowed to use some out-of-character knowledge to account for the Sherlock Holmes-level deductive ability such a character would doubtlessly be possessed of (unless, again, your GM really plays up having high stats as more than just some numerical value).
Yup. The High Int represents potential, not knowledge.
|
A round is 6 seconds, but most tables will spend a few minutes per round doing things. Should we just write down what we are doing at the same time and flip them over then go into initiative order to resolve everything?
I have been in a few games like that; it's funny to hear two PCs crack their skulls together, as they race for the same doorway, or grab the same item...
A variant that saw a lot of use in the early 80s, was for the initiative to be rolled (and re-rolled every round), then actions declared in reverse order.
That way, the ones who were quicker to think or act, got the benefit of knowing where the slower combatants were heading, and deciding if they wanted to mess with that, or aid it.
That is a White Wolf mechanic used in Vampire the Masquerade (last initiative anounces first).
So after reading a few threads, it seems like everyone has a different view of this. What does every one think "meta-gaming" is? Where is the line between playing the game and Meta-gaming?
Meta-gaming, to me, is making character based decisions on non character based information. Note that sometimes character based information is similar to, but not exactly the same as, game mechanics information.
Example: Fireball
My wizard knows he can generate a ball of fire that will streak out from his hand and explode at a point he designates.
He knows that as he gets more skilled as a wizard the fireball gets more potent and goes farther and roughly how potent that is measure against his knowledge of the world and magic.
He knows how far that fireball can go.
He knows that preternaturally quick creatures can completely dodge or mitigate the effect of his fireball's blast, despite being in the midst of it.
He does not know that enemies get a saving thrown against it. A saving throw is a game rule based concept that he should have no concept of in any way.
He does not know how many 'dice' of damage his Fireball does. That too is a purely game mecanic concept that would have no reationship to his life or the world he lives in.
He does not know the term Evasion or what it does mechanically.
He does know that some people can train and learn how to react to danger, even before they should be able to possibly react to it.
There are often overlaps between game mechanics knowledge (PLAYER knowledge) and Character knowledge, but they are mostly logical like the example above.
Players should make RP decisions based on what their CHARACTER knows. Not the player. To me it is a sign of a good RPer if they do so, even if it means he enters into a situation that is not ideal for the character. After all, your part storyteller in this game too. Your the 'GM' for your character and adding in such things often makes the game richer for everyone.
I have been in a few games like that; it's funny to hear two PCs crack their skulls together, as they race for the same doorway, or grab the same item...
We have played that way a few times as well, can be fun but wow can it lead to some really bad outcomes! Think "rogue sneaks behind evil wizard, as good wizard castes color spray."
I really was shocked at what some people (not on this thread!) thought was bad form and would get you kicked out of a group. Since all but one or two players I game with also DM, we are pretty good about limiting our OOC knowledge use, but will let some of it slide to help out new players. We even use the time machine sometimes! (oh wait, I DO have a silver weapon!)
"He knows quick creatures can completely dodge or mitigate a fireballs blast despite being in the mist of it"
"He does not know that enemies get a save against it."
These are the same things. In game terms, he knows the below because of the above. Sounds like you are less concerned with meta-game issues and more concerned with how your player words things.
Metagaming is like art. Most people aren't sure what good art is, but they know what they like when they see it. Rather than try to define Metagaming, I think just giving examples is the best way to handle it.
1) Using knowledge your character doesn't have : I had a player who used to read the rule books whenever it wasn't his turn in combat, and he'd tell everyone what the weaknesses were of everything they ran into. If he didn't know it, he'd grab a MM and try to find the monster, and he'd b@!** if it was a homebrew monster. Note that he played fighters with no Knowledge or survival skills at all, yet had every monster memorized OOC.
2) Cheating : When I first started GMing, I used modules. Then I caught a player reading the modules so they would know the best choices to make at each point in the game. To this day, I hate using APs/Modules/stories that are published, it left such a bad taste in my mouth. I don't even like buying them for ideas, because if I recycle an idea, someone might recognize it.
3) Logical Inconsistency Immortality : Players who do things their character should never, ever, ever do because they know the GM won't kill them. I don't set out to kill characters, but if you have your rogue sneak into the orc encampment rather than scout it, so you can try to loot things pre-combat using the rule that the GM won't let your character die, then you are cheating. I hate playing in games where the GM won't let you die, people do wierd things they wouldn't normally when they know they have immortality.
These are the same things.
They represent similar things but how they are percived by the CHARACTER and the PLAYER are radically different, which is the whole point.
The CHARACTER knows there are wild, amazing, supernatural things in his world. But his world and life has no concept of armor class, hit points, saving throws or other purely game mechanic concepts.
If you go up to a soldier and asked him how many dice of damage his bayonet does he would think your an idiot. Or if you go up to a Tank crewman and asked him what AC his tank was he would think your nuts too.
See the point. Some things translate and some don't. YOU may have the entire monster manual memorised and know every spell published in all the books, but your CHARACTER does not. He only knows what he or she has experienced in his life and world and what he has learned form the training he or she has received in the context of that existence.
The difference is important. At least to me and those I have played with.
So after reading a few threads, it seems like everyone has a different view of this. What does every one think "meta-gaming" is? Where is the line between playing the game and Meta-gaming?
The bad kind of metagaming is what would have been the case if I decided to tell the Wizard and Sorceror that their Ray of Frost spell was completely worthless against the Assassin Vines we were fighting this weekend. I didn't let on until the combat was over. I had used that monster in the last session I ran and knew it had resistances.
Good metagaming is often maligned for reasons that are often muddled. It's a loaded term. It's metagaming to look at the battle map, really, as your character is likely not all that aware of their surroundings when dealing with a combat situation. Is it bad? I'd say that using the map is as immersive as you can get with the type of game that's beign played. This isn't a LARP, after all. In fact, it's substantively better for a number of things than abstract number mashing.
Basically, it comes down to what the GM thinks is acceptable.
One of the classic issues with metagaming is the damage reduction problem:
Everyone knows a werewolf is hurt by silver (thanks popular culture). PF has its own "popular culture" -- but we don't know exactly what that is.
In PF your character doesn't know a werewolf is weak against silver unless he makes a trained knowledge: local check with a DC 12. Even then, the GM doesn't have to mention the damage reduction ("A werewolf can change shape from base form to hybrid form to wolf form. You need DC 17 to find out about DR.")
Does the GM just let all the players know? Or does the GM make it a DC 10 type "general knowledge" question anyone without knowledge ranks can ask?
Either way, this extends to lots of other issues.
Is it metagaming to carry around a bunch of different weapons that penetrate all kinds of DR? Some would say yes if the party hasn't fought a creature that has said DR. But if a character has a bunch of ranks in different knowledges, can't they just roll/take 10 to know that they're going to need a silver weapon, a cold iron weapon, an adamantine weapon, etc?
Wouldn't a weapon seller have a marketing interest in informing would-be adventurers that their silver wares are particularly effective against devils, vampires, and werewolves? The weapon seller could simply have a rank or two in knowledge: local.
Different GMs treat these situations differently.
It's interesting how being purposefully genre-stupid or genre-savvy to one's party's or own's detriment isn't generally considered meta-gaming.
It's interesting how being purposefully genre-stupid or genre-savvy to one's party's or own's detriment isn't generally considered meta-gaming.
Can you give an example?
For me the hardest part of the "to metagame or not to metagame" debate comes down to the fact that, at a certain point, you are playing a character whose job and livelihood probably come from "adventuring," and if not that then at least a character who knows his/her life is at stake every time they enter a dungeon. Any person with even average intelligence would understand know that means they need to find out important information about what they're doing. Now, this could simply be questioning other people at inns, listening to the "wise men" in the village, discussing things during down time with the party wizard/bard/inquisitor....
How would you DM this if the party fighter asked a local bard/expert/retired adventurer/whatever:
"Hey, I'm aware that certain creatures resist normal attacks, what creatures do you know of that need to be attacked with special materials?"
-Would you go through the Bestiary and make knowledge checks for every creature? Would you disallow the question (and why? it seems a completely reasonable and realistic question giving the occupation of the fighter)?
Now, I know a lot of this can be represented by knowledge skills, but at a certain point the characters are going to know or find out about a bunch of stuff. I guess you could make every player take ranks in "Profession: Adventurer" in order to know fairly common sense adventuring ideas (potions of protection from evil can protect you from mind control, potions of flying are essential at a certain point for melee characters, it's always good to have varying weapons because of DR, werewolf DR specifics, etc.). Anyhow, I'm just not sure where to draw the line, and I think several people have been correct in saying there is no easy way to handle this.
ps - Now that I've thought of it, every adventurer I ever make from now on will have ranks in "Profession: Adventurer" and I will demand to roll too know anything and everything related to adventuring in any way.... :p
How would you DM this if the party fighter asked a local bard/expert/retired adventurer/whatever:
"Hey, I'm aware that certain creatures resist normal attacks, what creatures do you know of that need to be attacked with special materials?"
-Would you go through the Bestiary and make knowledge checks for every creature? Would you disallow the question (and why? it seems a completely reasonable and realistic question giving the occupation of the fighter)?Now, I know a lot of this can be represented by knowledge skills, but at a certain point the characters are going to know or find out about a bunch of stuff. I guess you could make every player take ranks in "Profession: Adventurer" in order to know fairly common sense adventuring ideas (potions of protection from evil can protect you from mind control, potions of flying are essential at a certain point for melee characters, it's always good to have varying weapons because of DR, werewolf DR specifics, etc.). Anyhow, I'm just not sure where to draw the line, and I think several people have been correct in saying there is no easy way to handle this.
ps - Now that I've thought of it, every adventurer I ever make from now on will have ranks in "Profession: Adventurer" and I will demand to roll too know anything and everything related to adventuring in any way.... :p
I'd have him take pts in knowledge skills, that's what they are there for. If you let the character have the knowledge without the skill, you might as well throw away the entire skill chapter. It's also not fair to let the fighter that dumped his int have all the knowledge the rogue and wizard who actually put pts into the skills have. People already show up with 7 INT 7 CHA fighters and barbarians, that just encourages it.
I just let people assume take 10 on their skills for determining what they know. I also let people remember what they've actually encountered. But freebie knowledge just for being a PC breaks the system and kills the classes that actually put points into skills.
It's interesting how being purposefully genre-stupid or genre-savvy to one's party's or own's detriment isn't generally considered meta-gaming.Can you give an example?
Read pretty much anyone who claims to be against metagaming's account of a game. You cannot separate your personal knowledge from your character knowledge. Just like you personally can't use knowledge your character should have but you don't. The difference is how people make use of the knowledge they have. Some people use it to play "smarter" than the other half claims they should. And that other half often plays dumber, either for "character" reasons or to make sure they aren't playing too smart. Please see mdt's post just above.
DC10 knowledge checks can be made by anyone on any subject to know "common" knowledge. But someone like mdt is more likely to play down stuff and random person should know, and especially a well-traveled PC. He is using his knowledge to play down what the character knows, not the character's knowledge because you don't know what the character's knowledge is because it isn't tangible to you the player.
Everyone metagames. And sometime it's the anti-metagmers that do it the hardest.
|
|
Yup. The High Int represents potential, not knowledge.This should be represented by high amounts of skill points (check) and high modifiers to them (check); and a roll for that matter.
As such, I think it's really dependent on the player. A player using an 8 Int Barbarian shouldn't be employing any out-of-character knowledge. A player using a 20 Wis, 20 Int Wizard really should be allowed to use some out-of-character knowledge to account for the Sherlock Holmes-level deductive ability such a character would doubtlessly be possessed of (unless, again, your GM really plays up having high stats as more than just some numerical value).
Well, presume I'm playing a high-Int rogue, for instance. Suppose I encounter a creature I've never seen before, and I have poor Knowledge skills. Can I look at a creature and say 'it appears to have an unusual system of organs - likely that a sneak attack would be ineffective' if I know such a creature is not vulnerable to sneak attacks? Or 'the wings on that creature's back are too small to assist it too much in flying - its flight is likely to be ungainly' if I know a creature has poor flying maneuverability? These don't require the kind of specialized expertise represented by a Knowledge check - rather, they are deductive conclusions based on reason rather than a particular field of study.
Well, presume I'm playing a high-Int rogue, for instance. Suppose I encounter a creature I've never seen before, and I have poor Knowledge skills. Can I look at a creature and say 'it appears to have an unusual system of organs - likely that a sneak attack would be ineffective' if I know such a creature is not vulnerable to sneak attacks? Or 'the wings on that creature's back are too small to assist it too much in flying - its flight is likely to be ungainly' if I know a creature has poor flying maneuverability? These don't require the kind of specialized expertise represented by a Knowledge check - rather, they are deductive conclusions based on reason rather than a particular field of study.
How can you tell the creature has an unusual system of organs? Have you killed one and are now gutting it and looking through it? Or did you just get ambushed by it and on first sight want to use OOC knowledge about something your character never encountered before?
Since things in the books have wings that could never lift them off the ground (like dragons) yet fly fine anyway, or have no wings and fly fine, there's no in game logic for size of wings to equate to flight maneuverability one way or the other.
|
|
It's interesting how being purposefully genre-stupid or genre-savvy to one's party's or own's detriment isn't generally considered meta-gaming.Can you give an example?Read pretty much anyone who claims to be against metagaming's account of a game. You cannot separate your personal knowledge from your character knowledge. Just like you personally can't use knowledge your character should have but you don't. The difference is how people make use of the knowledge they have. Some people use it to play "smarter" than the other half claims they should. And that other half often plays dumber, either for "character" reasons or to make sure they aren't playing too smart. Please see mdt's post just above.
DC10 knowledge checks can be made by anyone on any subject to know "common" knowledge. But someone like mdt is more likely to play down stuff and random person should know, and especially a well-traveled PC. He is using his knowledge to play down what the character knows, not the character's knowledge because you don't know what the character's knowledge is because it isn't tangible to you the player.
Everyone metagames. And sometime it's the anti-metagmers that do it the hardest.
I agree - it becomes a sort of meta-metagame; consciously trying to avoid metagaming is a metagame of the metagame.
/dizzy
I agree - it becomes a sort of meta-metagame; consciously trying to avoid metagaming is a metagame of the metagame./dizzy
So, the argument is, because it is hard not to metagame, we should just ignore metagaming entirely, and everyone should metagame to the hilt, so everyone has whatever knowledge their player has, and we just toss the skills overboard? What about people metagaming by reading APs ahead of time and making all the right choices at all the right times, even if it doesn't fit their character background?
Can I look at a creature and say 'it appears to have an unusual system of organs - likely that a sneak attack would be ineffective' if I know such a creature is not vulnerable to sneak attacks? .
Unless you have x-ray vision, or the organs are on the creatures outside, no you can not say that. If you can't clearly see the organs, you have no clue where they are (or in a fantasy world, if they even have organs to begin with.) The only way to know for sure is a Knowledge check, or having fought one of those monsters before, or being told that knowledge (by someone who made that Knowledge check).
Or 'the wings on that creature's back are too small to assist it too much in flying - its flight is likely to be ungainly' if I know a creature has poor flying maneuverability?
That is more possible. But could also be totally wrong in a fantasy world. The only way to know for sure is a Knowledge check, or having seen one of those monsters before, or being told that knowledge (by someone who made that Knowledge check).
|
|
Well, presume I'm playing a high-Int rogue, for instance. Suppose I encounter a creature I've never seen before, and I have poor Knowledge skills. Can I look at a creature and say 'it appears to have an unusual system of organs - likely that a sneak attack would be ineffective' if I know such a creature is not vulnerable to sneak attacks? Or 'the wings on that creature's back are too small to assist it too much in flying - its flight is likely to be ungainly' if I know a creature has poor flying maneuverability? These don't require the kind of specialized expertise represented by a Knowledge check - rather, they are deductive conclusions based on reason rather than a particular field of study.How can you tell the creature has an unusual system of organs? Have you killed one and are now gutting it and looking through it? Or did you just get ambushed by it and on first sight want to use OOC knowledge about something your character never encountered before?
Since things in the books have wings that could never lift them off the ground (like dragons) yet fly fine anyway, or have no wings and fly fine, there's no in game logic for size of wings to equate to flight maneuverability one way or the other.
For instance, suppose I come across a Shoggoth (Bestiary 249) - a less-intelligent Rogue could say 'hey, thing has arms, legs and eyes, I could probably stab those like a human' while a more-intelligent rogue notes that the myriad appendages are nonfunctional and that the eyes of the creature could not reasonably be connected to any sort of nerve, etc.
Look at, say, the Nalfeshnee (Bestiary 65) - I could reasonably look at such a creature and say 'hey, that thing is huge but it has tiny wings; its flight is likely to be ungainly' with a degree of certainty while knowing as a player that it has poor flight maneuverability.
|
|
So, the argument is, because it is hard not to metagame, we should just ignore metagaming entirely, and everyone should metagame to the hilt, so everyone has whatever knowledge their player has, and we just toss the skills overboard? What about people metagaming by reading APs ahead of time and making all the right choices at all the right times, even if it doesn't fit their character background?
I agree - it becomes a sort of meta-metagame; consciously trying to avoid metagaming is a metagame of the metagame./dizzy
It would be nice if I could post without you casting such aspersions on me - please don't do that. I'm not commenting on whether metagaming is inherently good or bad - just that trying to play a secondary game of avoiding metagaming is also a metagame (ie. a game within a game).
Spock looks over the veiw screen as words begin to appear in space.....
Everyone metagames. And sometime it's the anti-metagmers that do it the hardest.
just that trying to play a secondary game of avoiding metagaming is also a metagame
... After thinking on this for 4.6 minutes, his head explodes.
So, the argument is, because it is hard not to metagame, we should just ignore metagaming entirely, and everyone should metagame to the hilt, so everyone has whatever knowledge their player has, and we just toss the skills overboard? What about people metagaming by reading APs ahead of time and making all the right choices at all the right times, even if it doesn't fit their character background?
I agree - it becomes a sort of meta-metagame; consciously trying to avoid metagaming is a metagame of the metagame./dizzy
No, the argument is because it is impossible to not metagame, you should stop going around being snooty despite metagaming just as much to everyone's detriment.
How can you tell the creature has an unusual system of organs? Have you killed one and are now gutting it and looking through it? Or did you just get ambushed by it and on first sight want to use OOC knowledge about something your character never encountered before?
Since things in the books have wings that could never lift them off the ground (like dragons) yet fly fine anyway, or have no wings and fly fine, there's no in game logic for size of wings to equate to flight maneuverability one way or the other.
That is metagaming. You are using your personal beliefs and knowledge to dictate a character's flow of logic. It is PERFECTLY reasonable that a character would look at a creature and logically deduce expected characteristics based on said creature's appearance.
|
|
Can I look at a creature and say 'it appears to have an unusual system of organs - likely that a sneak attack would be ineffective' if I know such a creature is not vulnerable to sneak attacks? .Unless you have x-ray vision, or the organs are on the creatures outside, no you can not say that. If you can't clearly see the organs, you have no clue where they are (or in a fantasy world, if they even have organs to begin with.) The only way to know for sure is a Knowledge check, or having fought one of those monsters before, or being told that knowledge (by someone who made that Knowledge check).
Or 'the wings on that creature's back are too small to assist it too much in flying - its flight is likely to be ungainly' if I know a creature has poor flying maneuverability?That is more possible. But could also be totally wrong in a fantasy world. The only way to know for sure is a Knowledge check, or having seen one of those monsters before, or being told that knowledge (by someone who made that Knowledge check).
Bear in mind that I'm coming up with these examples on the fly - you surely understand what I mean. Though it may be a fantasy world where creatures without wings can fly, there are still basic principles of movement that apply - one does not necessarily cast all reason to the wind as say 'well I guess anything is possible!'. Mundane creatures like birds still exist in Golarion, and they can fly because of their nonmagical makeup. A Nalfeshnee's flight could in fact be supernatural - creatures that fly supernaturally do so because they are inherently supernatural - but it seems a reasonable assumption to say 'hey, this thing probably can't fly well'.
|
|
Spock looks over the veiw screen as words begin to appear in space.....
Everyone metagames. And sometime it's the anti-metagmers that do it the hardest.just that trying to play a secondary game of avoiding metagaming is also a metagame... After thinking on this for 4.6 minutes, his head explodes.
*plays Inception theme*
Fairly common sense observations are fine, and, in all likelihood, probably even good roleplaying. The key is to make those observations almost all the time, not just when you know you're right as a player.
The whole "You know nothing unless you have knowledge ranks!" is even more meta-game absurd than playing a character who has a few tidbits of knowledge outside of where his skills are. Heck, turn on Jeopardy! on a given night and surprise yourself at the things you can come up with that you probably don't have any "trained ranks" in...(Someone's counter argument will be "That's just rolling high every now and then!" which is wrong, simply because you can't even roll on untrained knowledge checks, yet to claim a character knows NOTHING of nature except that which is common knowledge is ridiculous. Every human being, and I guess Elf or Dwarf, picks up tidbits of knowledge beyond what is common in many different areas.) It all comes down to how you handle it as a player...obviously knowing everything about everything without any knowledge skills is absurd, but so is not knowing anything that other people don't already know.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So, the argument is, because it is hard not to metagame, we should just ignore metagaming entirely, and everyone should metagame to the hilt, so everyone has whatever knowledge their player has, and we just toss the skills overboard? What about people metagaming by reading APs ahead of time and making all the right choices at all the right times, even if it doesn't fit their character background?
I agree - it becomes a sort of meta-metagame; consciously trying to avoid metagaming is a metagame of the metagame./dizzy
Painting someone's position to be the most extreme version possible (like changing "some of X should be tolerated" to "we should do X as much as possible") is pretty bad form.
Painting someone's position to be the most extreme version possible (like changing "some of X should be tolerated" to "we should do X as much as possible") is pretty bad form.So, the argument is, because it is hard not to metagame, we should just ignore metagaming entirely, and everyone should metagame to the hilt, so everyone has whatever knowledge their player has, and we just toss the skills overboard? What about people metagaming by reading APs ahead of time and making all the right choices at all the right times, even if it doesn't fit their character background?
I agree - it becomes a sort of meta-metagame; consciously trying to avoid metagaming is a metagame of the metagame./dizzy
I didn't say he said it, I asked if that was the argument. I still ask that. Since it seems to be part of the thread. Either the skills mean soemthing, or they don't. The argument became not 'how much knowledge can you have without actually putting in ranks' and instead became 'you cna't not metagame, so quit stopping others from metagaming'. And now, believe it or not, osmeone in the thread has said 'If you stop me from metagaming, you are metagaming, stop telling me what my skills represent!'.
So I stand by the question, is that what the argument is, that if you can't avoid metagaming you should go full hilt? Or should we have some threshhold above which we should say 'No, this far and no further' with metagmaing?
Nekyia's post is just the one I responded to, the question was not directed purely at him, but at the side of the thread who says you can know internal organs without seeing them, or that saying the game has too many examples of things that fly fine with small wings to use small wings to estimate how well something can fly is metagaming (which is a logic fault if I ever heard one).
|
|
Painting someone's position to be the most extreme version possible (like changing "some of X should be tolerated" to "we should do X as much as possible") is pretty bad form.So, the argument is, because it is hard not to metagame, we should just ignore metagaming entirely, and everyone should metagame to the hilt, so everyone has whatever knowledge their player has, and we just toss the skills overboard? What about people metagaming by reading APs ahead of time and making all the right choices at all the right times, even if it doesn't fit their character background?
I agree - it becomes a sort of meta-metagame; consciously trying to avoid metagaming is a metagame of the metagame./dizzy
Perhaps he's just having a bad day. :)
If a player started drawing the conclusions I mentioned above while playing as an 8 Int rogue, I would cry foul - because it's very likely that the character wouldn't be capable of drawing such conclusions - and assuming a really low-Int character, could even do the opposite (eg. "I try to sneak attack the ooze in its head-shaped thing!").
If I'm playing an epic-level rogue with 24 Int (who has somehow never encountered an ooze before), even with no ranks in Knowledge (dungeoneering) the character should be able to recognize that the thing has no vital organs and thus can't be sneak attacked, no check necessary.
I didn't say he said it, I asked if that was the argument. I still ask that. Since it seems to be part of the thread. Either the skills mean soemthing, or they don't.
Just because your argument is skills mean everything or they mean nothing doesn't mean that is everyone's argument.