We, as a gamer society, have greatly moved away from the concept of player knowledge advancing our characters vs character knowledge advancing the characters.
We have rules for knowledges so that our little lowbie fighter doesn't automatically whip out the torch and oil against a troll and so our wizards don't whip out fireballs when they see white dragons. At least- not without the appropriate checks.
Our characters check for traps rather than WE the players having to figure out whether they exist, and our characters use skills to disarm them rather than us trying to figure out the widget to let us go by.
And in fact when someone wants break down a door we roll a strength check. When our character needs to remember something we roll an int check. If we want to convince someone of something we roll bluff checks or diplomacy checks and the general presence (or lack thereof) for any given character is determined by their charisma score rather than our own force of personality or presence.
However when it comes to what spells to prepare- be it for a wizard, druid, cleric, ranger, paladin- well you get the idea.
When it comes to this its directly an issue of player knowledge. WE have to figure out what spells to cast in the future despite the fact that its our characters who are living in the world and who, at least in theory, are far more intelligent than we our selves are.
When you consider 20 is the theoretical human maximum (human 18 +2) and magical items and level bumps its possible that your witch or wizard especially could be far more intelligent than anyone who has ever existed on our earth. And yet we- the players- are expected to look into the game world and select their spells.
Its the very essence of metagaming.
Now spellcasters are already the most powerful of the lot and the prepared ones (wizards, clerics, druids) are the most powerful of that set. So making them more powerful isn't really something I advocate. Rather I'm curious as to the discussion about this. Am I wrong about it? Is it not metagaming afterall? If it is metagaming- is there a way to "fix" it without further breaking the system?
Even if its possible to fix, is it worth the bother?
Thoughts?
-S
|
Personally I see this as one more (eloquently explained) argument against the Vancian spellcasting system in favor of spontaneous casting. I know a lot of players get frustrated with having to pick out which spells to prepare each day, and those that don't just write up a list and say that's what they're preparing every day unless an obvious need arises (which just sort of defeats the biggest advantage about preparing spells).
On the other hand, Wizards and Clerics are also the ones most likely to focus on divination, which means it seems likely that they'd be able to magically get some sort of hints as to what to prepare tomorrow.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Metagaming, as a general statement, really should not be a dirty word. It's "playing the game". Which is what you do everytime you sit down to play the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. This isn't acting with dice. It's a bona-fide cooperative game.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...which suggest that Selgard's suggestion that we are moving away from player knowledge to character knowledge isn't as uniform as he might paint it.
I, for one, think that acting as my character and trying to cajole a merchant into selling me the last onyx necklace he's been holding for the Raja's niece. I prefer that, to picking up a d20 and rolling my dwarf inquisitor's Intimidate.
Speaking only for myself, I enjoy solving puzzle traps and puzzle rooms, for more than picking up a d20 and rolling my PC's Disable Device.
And I would rue the day I would no longer prepare water breathing on the hunch that my inquisitor might need it in the sewers tomorrow, and I would pick up my d20 and roll my PC's Spell Preparation Insight.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goodness... I hope with the development of advanced AI we'll be able to have programs to effectively simulate our characters completely and we won't even have to play the game at all -- leaving our characters blissfully free of player involvement and the accursed metagaming.
And THAT'S when we can start having some fun, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goodness... I hope with the development of advanced AI we'll be able to have programs to effectively simulate our characters completely and we won't even have to play the game at all -- leaving our characters blissfully free of player involvement and the accursed metagaming.
And THAT'S when we can start having some fun, right?
I personally want a copy of my brain uploaded into a computer so it can play Pathfinder 24/7 so I won't have to be bothered.
My prepared spellcasters prepare the spells they think they will need, based on experience and their expectations for the day. I do it that way because that's what the game rules say that prepared spellcasters do in the hour they spend each day preparing their spells.
Cheapy is correct, "metagaming" is not inherently good or bad. There is metagaming that advances the game experience and metagaming that detracts from it. In general I pursue the former and abjure the latter.
The problem with both concepts is that some players (such as Chris Mortika) want the challenge of figuring it out themselves while other players (especially the newer ones) are not experienced enough with the game to do so and thus need the dice to shore up those weaknesses.
In fact, that more than anything is why I have seen the game migrate towards checks. I remember back in 1st and 2nd edition asking the GM if I could make some sort of check because 'my character would know this stuff even if I don't'. 2.5edition added non-weapon proficiencies to help in this regard and 3.0 built a system around it.
However, for those experienced players we want something where we have to figure it out ourselves. For that I suggest 'bonuses to the check' if appropriate.
Yes, spells require choices. Oh well:) I would say play a spontaneous spellcaster but then you are just making different choices. Not everyone knows everything. At least with an Arcane Bond you have 1/day of that special spell you need. One other note: It is my belief that too many people ignore the ability to memorize spells later in the day. Both arcane and divine spellcasters can do this. So any spell that you can memorize later (such as Rope Trick), do so. Wizards can spend a feat and shrink that memorization time down to 1minute.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We, as a gamer society, have greatly moved away from the concept of player knowledge advancing our characters vs character knowledge advancing the characters.
We have rules for knowledges so that our little lowbie fighter doesn't automatically whip out the torch and oil against a troll and so our wizards don't whip out fireballs when they see white dragons. At least- not without the appropriate checks.
Our characters check for traps rather than WE the players having to figure out whether they exist, and our characters use skills to disarm them rather than us trying to figure out the widget to let us go by.
And in fact when someone wants break down a door we roll a strength check. When our character needs to remember something we roll an int check. If we want to convince someone of something we roll bluff checks or diplomacy checks and the general presence (or lack thereof) for any given character is determined by their charisma score rather than our own force of personality or presence.
However when it comes to what spells to prepare- be it for a wizard, druid, cleric, ranger, paladin- well you get the idea.
When it comes to this its directly an issue of player knowledge. WE have to figure out what spells to cast in the future despite the fact that its our characters who are living in the world and who, at least in theory, are far more intelligent than we our selves are.
When you consider 20 is the theoretical human maximum (human 18 +2) and magical items and level bumps its possible that your witch or wizard especially could be far more intelligent than anyone who has ever existed on our earth. And yet we- the players- are expected to look into the game world and select their spells.Its the very essence of metagaming.
Now spellcasters are already the most powerful of the lot and the prepared ones (wizards, clerics, druids) are the most powerful of that set. So making them more powerful isn't really something I advocate. Rather I'm curious as to the discussion about this. Am I wrong...
So when we order a beer in a tavern should we have the player roll a diplomacy check. If a player remembers something mentioned earlier in the adventure should we have him roll an intelligence check and if he fails tell him that he did not remember that. Knowing the monster manual is just knowing the game. It is separate from the knowledge checks. If someone can find a trap without the disable skill check through being observant or cleaver. Great, that is what the game is about. If someone finds a secret door through roleplaying than great. Skills are guidelines to enhance roleplay not straight jackets.
We, as a gamer society, have greatly moved away from the concept of player knowledge advancing our characters vs character knowledge advancing the characters.
We have rules for knowledges so that our little lowbie fighter doesn't automatically whip out the torch and oil against a troll and so our wizards don't whip out fireballs when they see white dragons. At least- not without the appropriate checks.
Our characters check for traps rather than WE the players having to figure out whether they exist, and our characters use skills to disarm them rather than us trying to figure out the widget to let us go by.
And in fact when someone wants break down a door we roll a strength check. When our character needs to remember something we roll an int check. If we want to convince someone of something we roll bluff checks or diplomacy checks and the general presence (or lack thereof) for any given character is determined by their charisma score rather than our own force of personality or presence.
However when it comes to what spells to prepare- be it for a wizard, druid, cleric, ranger, paladin- well you get the idea.
When it comes to this its directly an issue of player knowledge. WE have to figure out what spells to cast in the future despite the fact that its our characters who are living in the world and who, at least in theory, are far more intelligent than we our selves are.
When you consider 20 is the theoretical human maximum (human 18 +2) and magical items and level bumps its possible that your witch or wizard especially could be far more intelligent than anyone who has ever existed on our earth. And yet we- the players- are expected to look into the game world and select their spells.Its the very essence of metagaming.
Now spellcasters are already the most powerful of the lot and the prepared ones (wizards, clerics, druids) are the most powerful of that set. So making them more powerful isn't really something I advocate. Rather I'm curious as to the discussion about this. Am I wrong...
I am not my character, and my character is not me.
I don't see it as metagaming. As an example if my rogue has ranks in disable device he is an expert at his craft. If he were a real person I would not expect to know what he know about finding traps. Another example is that because I GM I can identify most monsters even from a vague description, and I know their weaknesses, but my rogue does not so just because I know that monster X is weak against cold iron that does not mean I should use the information in character. By playing letting my character handle things I am definitely not metagaming.If I wanted to play myself and not my character I would use my own scores assuming the group could agree on what those were. If my character has a charisma and dex of 17, but my real life charisma is a 10 then I should not suffer in the game because I can't deliver a great speech, and really do a triple back flip. At the same time if you are playing a character with a low dex and charisma, but you are very likable and athletic your character should not be expected to walk on his hands with his eyes closed or expect to get a free pass* on social situations. The game is about what the character can do, not what you can do.
*Free pass was an exaggeration, but I think you get my point.
As for RP'ing more intelligent creatures or characters that is hard to do. I have often given my players hints are asked them "is that what you really want to do". The player might not see what is going on, but his character might. At the same time the player has to be free to make his own choices so if he proceeds with plan A, so be it.
I enjoy the spell selection processes, both learning new ones and deciding which ones to prepare on any given day.
You, as player and in running a character, make the best choices you can; sometimes, you get lucky and your list is optimal for the situations you encounter. Sometimes, it's kind of a struggle to get much use out of your choices.
Either way, it isn't a question of metagaming, any more than choosing your race, class, skills, and gear are questions of metagaming... and either way can be chock-full of memorable fun.
Part of the fun of gaming is directing your character's development; spell choice each day is the daily dose of direction for prepared casters.
Even using those pregens wouldn't completely remove metagaming... the only way to TRULY be safe would be to read transcripts of people who played a scenario with a pregenerated character. Then we'd be SURE we didn't metagame at all. Better yet, just read books and tell people you role-play. Safe and secure!
When you read between the lines, he's chiseling for a mechanic to change memorized spells on the basis of your character knowing better -- which he himself admits is completely whack, because such casters don't need any help being more powerful than they already are. The pungent scent of gorgonzola pervades.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you read between the lines, he's chiseling for a mechanic to change memorized spells on the basis of your character knowing better -- which he himself admits is completely whack, because such casters don't need any help being more powerful than they already are. The pungent scent of gorgonzola pervades.
I took it differently. I figured the point was that a Wizard could prepare a whole lot of specific spells because out of game he knows they will be helpful, while in game its debatable whether the caster would know to prepare those.
It gets harder and harder not to "meta game" the more experienced a group is. I mean your asking a group to basically play dumb when they come up against something they know about but their characters have never fought. This goes against our basic nature and is hard to balance.
Normally I ignore it as a DM unless its a blatant use of out of game knowledge that the character would have no knowledge of. Stuff like Fighting a Red Dragon and knowing to use cold should be a pretty easy check for instance, because every Bard in every Inn probably has a story or two of how the heroes of old killed so in so dragon. Knowing what to do against a Black Pudding though... I don't see a ton of Bards singing an epic tale about a Black Pudding.
Shows what you know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpUybAMfa-0
I laughed so hard my wife came asked me what was wrong.
You sir have won the internetz tonight.
|
When it comes to this its directly an issue of player knowledge. WE have to figure out what spells to cast in the future despite the fact that its our characters who are living in the world and who, at least in theory, are far more intelligent than we our selves are.
When you consider 20 is the theoretical human maximum (human 18 +2) and magical items and level bumps its possible that your witch or wizard especially could be far more intelligent than anyone who has ever existed on our earth. And yet we- the players- are expected to look into the game world and select their spells.
Good point. We will make much worse choices for their prepared spells than our characters would. The PCs have more time to think about this - it is their whole life - and their life depends on it - and they are more intelligent.
Its the very essence of metagaming.
Making worse choices? Ironic. What do you propose to make them more realistic?
I wonder if any amount of metagamimg here would make our choices as good as our PCs would choose?
Now spellcasters are already the most powerful of the lot and the prepared ones (wizards, clerics, druids) are the most powerful of that set.
Not true in Pathfinder. I believe you are thinking of 3rd edition.
Rather I'm curious as to the discussion about this. Am I wrong...
That there should be a mechanic for improving our spell choices? That's an interesting thought. Though like others have hinted I suspect to do that well would require artificial intelligence. There may be some small steps we can take in the right direction.
I put it here rather than homebrew/houserule beacuse I wanted discussion, not a proposed "Fix" if in fact its a problem at all. I really don't want a solution Rules wise because it would just end up making them stronger. Which they don't need.
I guess we could let them leave 1/2 slots unfilled and fill them on the go or have some mechanic to let the caster rol a die and see if he had the correct spell or something but.. blech. Rules wise I'm fine with how it is.
Its the thought aspect behind it though that got me thinking.. And I thank you all for your replies.
I do agree that I the player can Rp a diplomatic situation but while that could give me a +/- to a roll, an eloquent player shouldn't steamroll a diplomacy that should be failed based on character ability anymore than a diplomancer character should fail just because the Player has a studder and is as glib as a rusty spork.
Good/bad/wrong? Not at all. I just see a lot of discussion on the forums about metagaming and its impact on the game, and its not difficult to see the evolution of skills and checks in the game and how they've moved us further and further away from *us* and closer to our characters in the game world.
(that is to say, playing our characters more and ourselves less).
I don't think that the forums are representative of the hobby, but the rules in the books at least are representative of the rules. A 24 strength fighter doesn't require the player to break the door, we roll and have the fighter do it. We don't use our knowledge of the troll we use our character's knowledge of the troll.. but when it comes to spells and such, we use our knowledge directly to interact with the game.
Bad? Good? Just a discussion point really.
-S
Selgard: Simple solution: give every prepared spellcaster the option to spend a feat to reduce the time to fill slots from 15minutes to 1minute. Currently only wizards have that option.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem I see with the prepared spellcasters is that you need time to chose you spells for the next day.
And it happened that our pcs went to bed after an adventuring day and as some out of game chatter erupted I took that as an oportunity to select my prepared spells for the next day, when suddenly and for me unexpectedly the gm tells us that we are attacked.
So I had to try and remember what I had prepared for the day before and which of those spells I already used up.
I make it exact you would need two lists of spells with memorization markers, one for the even days, one for the odd days so to speak.
TL;DR
I don't see a metagaming problem, only a book keeping problem.
I think that if the player of the caster is really playing his character based on his mental stats, no problem. Besides, people and characters have idiosyncrasies. A given wizard may always prepare Grease every day (even if he knows better spells) because it saved his life one time. Or maybe he just enjoys watching people fall down, who knows.
I don't think that players need any more chance to retroactively change their prepared spells. After all, if a spell is "OMG we need it right now" important (Stone to Flesh, Neutralize Poison, Remove Curse, etc.), why didn't you get a scroll of it made for emergencies? Sure, one cannot prepare for every eventuality, but part of the fun is being forced to improvise.
There are certain limits. I think most people would raise eyebrows in response to something like "Well, my character rolled a 1 on his Knowledge check to find out what that giant sixteen-armed beast with the glowing rune on its head was or what it was was doing with that half-elf caster with a matching glowing room... but I think I'll choose to prepare Devolution". But in general, no, preparing a spell list isn't metagaming, it's just playing the game. You're allowed to make decisions. That's why you're there.
I'm sensing some snark directed at the OP from some of the posts up-thread, and I'm kind of surprised Selgard had to come back to clarify. You people are aware that Selgard isn't on one side of this fence or the other, right? I think it's pretty obvious that he posted this as a discussion to gather people's thoughts on the matter. He's not "fishing" or trying to be "cheesy" at all. He's also not suggesting there is (or isn't) a problem with the topic at hand. I think he intended this to be more of a "round-table" discussion than anything else. No need to be snarky.
For what it's worth, Selgard, I think it's actually a really interesting topic you've brought up.
I'm with those who say metagaming is part of the game, to a degree. That's probably colored by my 2nd Edition glasses. Though I'm also of the opinion that just because you're incredibly charismatic in real life doesn't mean you dump CHA all the time "for free". Granted, if the player does come up with something completely brilliant during a diplomatic discussion I'll grant a circumstance bonus, from +1 to +5. I'm actually a huge advocate of using the circumstance bonus to blend character abilities with player capability.
But that's not the primary focus of this discussion. So, should there be something for spell preparation? I don't think so. It's just one of those things that comes with the territory of abstraction in a game simulation. I don't think it's necessarily a sacred cow (4th Edition certainly didn't), but if you want to use 3.5 mechanics it's a legacy you need to deal with. Short of some extensive houseruling.
However, I do try to reconcile a character's high INT with the player who has to do the preparation. I'll leave it in the player's hands 99% of the time but if certain spells would be better in a given situation that the character has foreknowledge of then I'll provide suggestions. I figure that helps to replicate the higher Intelligence. Same goes for situations where the the caster is placed into a long-term environment or circumstance where certain spells would fare better. If the player is missing something obvious I may provide hints or recommend certain spells.
It's part of my game-style as a GM. I can be harsh with the rules and with the consequences of my players' actions, but I also try to be fair and helpful. I do something similar with WIS. I sort of treat a really high WIS score like the Common Sense Merit from White Wolf games for those who are familiar. If one of my players is having an off-day or just doesn't "get it" and they have a bonus of +3 or higher to Wisdom then I'll sometimes allow them a Wisdom check to see if their character would have second thoughts. If it's really obvious I might just advise them against it.
I'll probably post more later as I think of it.