That’s just poor roleplaying and turning your stat dumping, which should be a disadvantage to an advantage. Borderline cheating. Not “good metagaming”.Because the party dunce never accidentally knocks the right (or wrong) thing over and finds the hidden secret?
Randomly? Sure. But “Since I knew the answers, i came up with ways to have my character reveal them to the rest of the party.”. Nothing wrong with saying “My Character, not being very bright, begins doing random things…” .
If I can personally bench-press 250#, is it Ok to have my Wizard with a str of 5 do the same?
|
Randomly? Sure. But “Since I knew the answers, i came up with ways to have my character reveal them to the rest of the party.”. Nothing wrong with saying “My Character, not being very bright, begins doing random things…” .
If I can personally bench-press 250#, is it Ok to have my Wizard with a str of 5 do the same?
Poor example. Your wizard is physically incapable of benching that weight. Your 5 Int fighter IS physically capable of eating the chess piece that prevents the puzzle from being solved.
That’s just poor roleplaying and turning your stat dumping, which should be a disadvantage to an advantage. Borderline cheating. Not “good metagaming”.I once played a character that had an Int score below that of a child's, several times throughout the campaign the party would run into puzzles/challenges that the other PC's could not figure out (including characters with Intelligence scores that would make Einstein look like a blathering fool). Since I knew the answers, i came up with ways to have my character reveal them to the rest of the party.
One such example is when there was an idol sitting on a pedestal that would teleport us to the next area. As the rest of the party scrambled around the room trying to find hidden passages and such, I had my character play with the "pretty doll" that someone left behind...
It depends, if the other players had had a fair crack at the puzzle but were struggling then it was potentially good meta-gaming as the alternative could have been the adventure stalling and players getting bored.
This is especially true if you have a pixel-b&+#%ing GM who isn't ensuring the game keeps going by giving hints, Intelligence checks to figure the puzzle out, or simply other alternatives that don't require the puzzle to be solved.
No. If you *CHOOSE* to dump your PC’s Int down to 5 so that you can have a super-str and thus DPR, then you must live with the consequences of that CHOICE. Next time, don’t dump int. Wow, think about that. Make a choice and live with that choice.
If you have a bad DM, rather than cheating, just discuss those issues with the DM, and give him suggestions how he can do better.
Poor example. Your wizard is physically incapable of benching that wait. Your 5 Int fighter IS physically capable of eating the chess piece that prevents the puzzle from being solved.Randomly? Sure. But “Since I knew the answers, i came up with ways to have my character reveal them to the rest of the party.”. Nothing wrong with saying “My Character, not being very bright, begins doing random things…” .
If I can personally bench-press 250#, is it Ok to have my Wizard with a str of 5 do the same?
But he’s mentally incapable of figuring out what a chess piece is, and why he’d pick out that one out of 32 that solves the problem, rather than the other 31 which will kill him on the spot. It's cheating.
|
|
But he’s mentally incapable of figuring out what a chess piece is, and why he’d pick out that one out of 32 that solves the problem, rather than the other 31 which will kill him on the spot. It's cheating.
So the player gets to sit there, knowing the answer to the puzzle, until he randomly rolls the right number?
Yep. Next time, don't dump INT to get 5% extra DPR.
Heck, I am allowing him the smart thing of starting to do random actions, hoping one might work- rather than taking a nap, eating a ration, or twiddling his thumbs.
If you want to play a smart PC, one that can solve puzzles like you can, then why not invest a couple points in Int? Or heck, even Wis?
If you want to play a smart PC, one that can solve puzzles like you can, then why not invest a couple points in Int? Or heck, even Wis?Who said he isn't?
He did. "I once played a character that had an Int score below that of a child's"
Look at it this way. He said “Since I knew the answers, i came up with ways to have my character reveal them to the rest of the party.”. Now, if he had learned the answers by reading the module, would anyone think this was “good metagaming”?
IMHO it is never "good metagaming" to have a character act in any way based on information the player has but the character lacks.
The main problem with any discussion over what is or isn't "good metagaming" is that it is highly unlikely that you could get three people together to agree what metagaming itself is, much less what constitutes "good" vs "bad" versions of it.
Building a character is metagaming. Leveling up a character is metagaming. Choosing sorcerer spells or witch hexes is metagaming. Anything that you do with your character that is not based entirely on what that character would know from their own experience is metagaming. That includes determining successful hits, calculating damage, making saving throws, determining skill difficulty or pretty much anything to do with rolling dice.
So in that sense "good metagaming" is when you allow all those myriad sorts of metagame activities to drive your character's reaction as opposed to having your character's actions directly influence any of those things.
|
|
If you want to play a smart PC, one that can solve puzzles like you can, then why not invest a couple points in Int? Or heck, even Wis?Who said he isn't?He did. "I once played a character that had an Int score below that of a child's"
Look at it this way. He said “Since I knew the answers, i came up with ways to have my character reveal them to the rest of the party.”. Now, if he had learned the answers by reading the module, would anyone think this was “good metagaming”?
He didn't say anything about what his Wisdom score was, which you added in your question. If he had a 16 Wisdom, would that change your stance?
How does reading the module compare to figuring out the answer himself? Your problem isn't him having the information, it's how he acts on it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really have a problem with the idea of saying "you have 5 intelligence, you don't get it and never will" if the reverse of "you have 20 intelligence, so here's the answer to the puzzle" is also true.
Suppose there's a mathematical puzzle and I know the answer but I'm playing the least intelligent PC.
Is it metagaming to tell the answer to the group, and then the player who's running a Wizard with an Int of 22 can have his character actually come up with the solution?
He didn't say anything about what his Wisdom score was, which you added in your question. If he had a 16 Wisdom, would that change your stance?
How does reading the module compare to figuring out the answer himself? Your problem isn't him having the information, it's how he acts on it.
He didn’t. Like I said, if he had a high Wis, than that might be different.
It’s exactly the same. The Player is solving the problem by using resources the PC has no access to.
Sure, and he's acting on it by solving the puzzle, which his PC shouldn't be able to do.
I don't really have a problem with the idea of saying "you have 5 intelligence, you don't get it and never will" if the reverse of "you have 20 intelligence, so here's the answer to the puzzle" is also true.
Well, it shouldn’t be handed to him. It should be “OK, make a INT check, DC 20”. Bob-the village idiot, you have a -4 , but Wizco you have a +5 due to your stats. “
Suppose there's a mathematical puzzle and I know the answer but I'm playing the least intelligent PC.
Is it metagaming to tell the answer to the group, and then the player who's running a Wizard with an Int of 22 can have his character actually come up with the solution?
Let us assume you got the answer instead by reading the module. Would it be fair to feed that info to the Wizard player?
It’s the same. You, as a player, are coming up with info your Character could not know.
Let the wizard PC make his own roll or roleplay his own PC.
In our games we have many times had one player suggest a solution to another player who then has their more appropriate PC present the solution in-game.
Just as the wizard player might suggest the barbarian player have their barbarian kick down the door.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really have a problem with the idea of saying "you have 5 intelligence, you don't get it and never will" if the reverse of "you have 20 intelligence, so here's the answer to the puzzle" is also true.Well, it shouldn’t be handed to him. It should be “OK, make a INT check, DC 20”. Bob-the village idiot, you have a -4 , but Wizco you have a +5 due to your stats. “
So all puzzles should be roll a d20?
So all puzzles should be roll a d20?I don't really have a problem with the idea of saying "you have 5 intelligence, you don't get it and never will" if the reverse of "you have 20 intelligence, so here's the answer to the puzzle" is also true.Well, it shouldn’t be handed to him. It should be “OK, make a INT check, DC 20”. Bob-the village idiot, you have a -4 , but Wizco you have a +5 due to your stats. “
No, of course not. First the PC’s should be given a chance to solve the puzzle by in-character roleplaying. Which means of course that the smart player with the idiot PC can’t contribute the answer here. If the Players playing a high Int PC can’t come up with the answer, then Int or Skill checks are called for.
In our games we have many times had one player suggest a solution to another player who then has their more appropriate PC present the solution in-game.
Just as the wizard player might suggest the barbarian player have their barbarian kick down the door.
That’s because the player is properly roleplaying that his smart wizard makes a suggestion to the dumb barbarian.
No, of course not. First the PC’s should be given a chance to solve the puzzle by in-character roleplaying. Which means of course that the smart player with the idiot PC can’t contribute the answer here. If the Players playing a high Int PC can’t come up with the answer, then Int or Skill checks are called for.So all puzzles should be roll a d20?I don't really have a problem with the idea of saying "you have 5 intelligence, you don't get it and never will" if the reverse of "you have 20 intelligence, so here's the answer to the puzzle" is also true.Well, it shouldn’t be handed to him. It should be “OK, make a INT check, DC 20”. Bob-the village idiot, you have a -4 , but Wizco you have a +5 due to your stats. “
So a less-puzzle wise player with a high Int PC is rewarded, whilst the experienced player should sit on his hands because he chose to have a different role in the party despite knowing the answer.
And what happens if the Barb Player nat-20's his real-life check? Should he stay quiet? He might in real-life be a bit dim, but happens to guess /know an answer.
We actually discussed this puzzle thing at length in another thread (can't remember the thread title)
I agree that if you tank your intelligence you should be restraining yourself when it comes to solving the puzzles...its good form. but if the rest of the players are sitting there for 15 minutes arguing and your hints are going in vain its time to move the game along and that means that Dee DaDee should be able to assist in solving the puzzle.
So, let us say in real life you are a fencing master. The guy playing the Fighter is unable to get a decent hit on the BBEG for round after round. Is it then Ok to tell the DM “MY Wizard pulls out a epee from his pack and skewers the balrog thru it’s heart, using this
thrust".So, since you are IRL a fencing master- then OF COURSE the DM should allow your wizard (who has a str of 5 and a dex of 10 and no skill with the weapon) to do a critical hit insta-kill heart thrust since you as a player can demonstrate it?
Sometimes there’s a penalty for making a *CHOICE* and in this case if the CHOICE you made was to have a dumb as a rock PC, then if that means your party can’t solve the puzzle- that’s the way things go. Choices.
Just as if your party had no clerics. And there was a TPK due to no healing. Choices.
If the party came to a chasm, and the only way across was Fly or similar magics, and the spellcasters only brought Fireball, should the DM allow them to cross anyway if one of the players knows how to fly an airplane?
So a less-puzzle wise player with a high Int PC is rewarded, whilst the experienced player should sit on his hands because he chose to have a different role in the party despite knowing the answer.
And what happens if the Barb Player nat-20's his real-life check? Should he stay quiet? He might in real-life be a bit dim, but happens to guess /know an answer.
He made a choice. His choice was to bump up his DPR by 5% instead of having a PC with even modest IQ. Choice. No one forced him to have a dim-bulb PC.
Does a Nat 20 auto-make a ability check? If it is like a skill check, then a nat 20 just means he rolled a 20. If the DC is 20, and he has a -4 then he got a 16. Sorry, that’s a FAIL.
Now yes, if the DM called for a DC 15, and he rolled a 20 with a -4, then yes! he got lucky. Great! No problem.
What if he just says 'hey Bob, your barbarian should kick down the door'?
Players accidentally talk in a OOC “voice” all the time. The DM should not generally penalize anyone for this. It would be assumed by any reasonable DM that what was meant was= Dave “Bob, my Wizard says to your barbarian: “Hruntar, SMASH!””. No problem.
But if Bob has Hruntar say to Dave’s Wizard “Hey, you know I have a degree in calculus, so the answer is xy to the square root of pi” the DM can properly tell Bob to stop since Hruntar has no way of knowing advanced mathematics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if he just says 'hey Bob, your barbarian should kick down the door'?Players accidentally talk in a OOC “voice” all the time. The DM should not generally penalize anyone for this. It would be assumed by any reasonable DM that what was meant was= Dave “Bob, my Wizard says to your barbarian: “Hruntar, SMASH!””. No problem.
But if Bob has Hruntar say to Dave’s Wizard “Hey, you know I have a degree in calculus, so the answer is xy to the square root of pi” the DM can properly tell Bob to stop since Hruntar has no way of knowing advanced mathematics.
I totally meant the wizard PLAYER says to the barbarian PLAYER, completely out of character, "Hey Bob, your barbarian should kick down the door."
If the barbarian PLAYER figures out a puzzle the group is trying to solve I see no problem with the barbarian PLAYER telling the wizard PLAYER "Hey Joe, I think this is probably a magic cube problem, if so, the answer is probably to punch the button on the side with the 6, so have your wizard go click the 6 button."
This is a cooperative game and sometimes that means cooperating in character and sometimes it means cooperating out of character.
If I were playing with a group and we struggled with a puzzle for thirty minutes and then clicked the 4 button and got blasted for it, if the barbarian player then said "Dude, I totally knew the answer was 6, but my barbarian's stupid and never would have figured it out", I'd suggest to him that perhaps in the future he could share his brilliant insight with the group in those situations.
Nope, sorry. We wouldn't allow that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, sorry. We wouldn't allow that.
Which brings us back to Rynjin's wise (IMO) observation:
"If it enhances the game, and especially the fun for everyone at the table, it's good.
If it decreases either it's bad."
I think every table eventually reaches a common ground on what's allowable or "good" when it comes to metagaming.
We've had a new girl come into the game recently, so our meta-gaming was ptrtty high, for a bit, as we tried to help her understand what her options were. It's coming down again now, as she's becoming more aware of what's at her disposal. Her BF is having a hard time letting her make bad decisions, though, so sometimes our DM gives him a "meta" rap on the knuckles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Controversial scenarios...
1. Discussing HP so that you don't want have awkward "my healing powers can heal the typical villager after he has been wounded by an ankheg; does that describe the severity of your current injuries?"
They even use that at hospitals today. "On a scale from 1 to 10, how much does it hurt?" I assume they are asking about HP loss and trying to be subtle and non-meta about it. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well that went downhill fast. I thank those of you who gave examples of metagaming gone right. I guess I'm not surprised about the subsequent arguments over who is playing the game right and who isn't.
Cheers.
Sorry, about my part. Well some fun meta-examples are where there are tropes that regularly occur in one game. When we move to a different game we either keep the trope or subvert it.
For example, all naked people we find in dungeons are evil. The less clothes they have the more caution we need. But it invariably generates some mirth when we encounter an unclothed person.
If you define it as inherently bad, then no it cannot. However if it's defined as something Meta- to the game, then of course it can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good or not, what floors me are some of the things that get called "metagaming." Party finds a gem that summons a water elemental. You describe the elemental as a being made of pure water. A week later, when the party is fighting a monster while swimming, someone says, "Hey, summon that water thingy to help!" Invariably, someone else will open the Bestiary, see that water elementals get a bonus to attacks against waterborne opponents or something, get a self-righteous expression, and point at the offender and loudly and obnoxiously accuse them "That's metagaming! You're not allowed to know (Ex) abilities! It says it in the book so you're not allowed to know it! Metagamer! Metagamer! Ooooooh! I'm telling on you! DM, make him stop!"
A lot of people I've talked to in the past seem to have this idea that if the characters ever make common-sense guesses or learn from experience, they are somehow "metagaming" and MUST BE STOPPED!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best example of good meta-gaming that I can think of would be when you are facing an in-game decision that affects other party members. One course of action will alienate other player characters and split the party, while the other would let the adventure continue. You have no in-game information to pick between the two. As a player, you like your current player character and do not want to have to replace him.
Since the option that keeps the party together is a viable choice, you should go with that decision and then rationalize why you ultimately decided that way. Saying that you flipped a coin and it came up the way you chose (even though you really did not flip that coin) is as good a way as any.
How would it be common sense that a water elemental gets a bonus against water born opponents?
It would not. However, it would be common sense that, if you're in the water, fighting other opponents in the water, a being made of water might be helpful to have on your side. The decision was made based on common sense (in water -> summon water thingy). But some idiot immediately decides there must be metagaming going on because his or her metagame knowledge happens to extend to the rulebook entry, and he immediately projects his own fears and inadequacies onto everyone else.
I think I've probably shared this true story before:
I had a player once whose character's primary weapon was a +1 flaming longsword. Had Weapon Focus, a bunch of other feats for it, loved it. But when the party encountered a monster and my description sounded unmistakably like a troll, the player told me, "I attack it with my dagger."
Me: "Um, okay... why not your sword?"
Player: "Well, I know trolls regenerate unless you use fire, but my character doesn't necessarily know that, so I'm not metagaming."
Me: "Your character ALWAYS uses his longsword! Why on earth would he suddenly switch to a dagger?"
Player: "BUT USING THE LONGSWORD IS METAGAMING!!!!"Evidently this player had been punished so mercilessly by a string of DMs for perceived "metagaming" that he was now basically unable to play the game, he was so worried about it all the time. I kind of felt there was a moral in there somewhere, but again, YMMV.
I didn't notice you had said "while swimming", so that makes sense.
And the easiest way to avoid metagaming? Ask.
"Hm..If I remember right trolls have regeneration of Derp d6 + Derp / round. Would my character know that?"
DM: "Hmm...maybe, make a Derp skill check."
Avoids the problem outright.
Yep, then it can be like a thread last year.
PC:"The Vrock's are dancing? Do I know about their dance?"DM: "Roll"
PC: "Fail, guess I stand there then - as running away would be meta-gaming."
DM: "Well that was a TPK."
And the easiest way to avoid metagaming? Ask.
"Hm..If I remember right trolls have regeneration of Derp d6 + Derp / round. Would my character know that?"
DM: "Hmm...maybe, make a Derp skill check."
Avoids the problem outright.
Or, in the example: "Hm... If I remember right trolls have regeneration. Whether or not my character knows that, he ALWAYS uses his sword! Will you kick me out of the game or call me names if I use my sword? Or do I have to use a dagger?"
The irony is that people are so afraid of the dreaded "M" word that they'll force themselves and everyone else to make nonsensical and self-destructive decisions based on metagame knowledge in order to avoid the appearance of metagaming. How insane is that?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once faced a trio of babau demons with an APL 7(ish) party in a PFS scenario (my character had never met his party mates before this mission) and was ready to holy smite the lot of them for 1d6/level and possible blindness. However, 2-3 allies would be caught in the area and potentially take some minor damage. I asked them all, out of character, what their alignments were and whether they were okay with it before casting.
I think that kind of courtesy is "good metagaming".