If its normal/reasonable behavior that isn't out of the ordinary then I doubt someone would call you on it.
You would be surprised.
If you suddenly do something that is out of the ordinary like for the trolls you suddenly pull out your flaming dagger +3 that you NEVER use and now use it for them...that might strike people as odd and question whether you're using OOC knowledge or not.
No disagreement at all! But how about this one: the party fighter notices that the trolls he's been hacking up with his axe keep getting back up and fighting some more. He also notices that the trolls that the wizard fireballed are nothing but charred corpses that don't get back up. I have heard DMs demand a Knowledge checks at that point, for simple observations like "Huh, fire seems to be bad for trolls." When a PC failed the check, the DM refused to allow the character to make any connection whatsoever -- the fighter in this case would evidently be stricken with both blindness and idiocy, on account of that die roll (and this is an Int 10-12 fighter, not someone who had dumped the stat and you could play off his idiocy as being in-character). The DM would tell him, in essence, that he wasn't allowed to use fire against trolls, ever, because that would be "metagaming."
People get really severe cases of metagamophobia and will make the most asinine rulings in order to avoid any appearance of it -- to the extend of declaring mass mental blockages and selective blindness on all of the characters in the game world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. I always liked the part in Mobley's killer Greyhawk Ruins module where it says something like, "At this point, the PCs can automatically identify orcs, orogs, ogrillons, half-orcs, and half-ogres by sight, and have no chance of mistaking them for one another" -- after they've spent the last like 6 dungeon levels fighting the aforementioned mooks.
There comes a point where "learning from repeated experience" cannot in any way be considered "metagaming," but I've sadly met -- and played with -- people who can't see that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People get really severe cases of metagamophobia and will make the most asinine rulings in order to avoid any appearance of it -- to the extend of declaring mass mental blockages and selective blindness on all of the characters in the game world.
My personal pet peeve is skeletons. In the real world, most people would be smart enough to use a hammer to smash up a pile of bones instead of an icepick, but in D&D-land players and GMs are suddenly scared to let PCs use an ounce of sense.
|
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?
In all seriousness (and please read this reply in full before writing me off as a moron, I promise this is worth it): Yes, absolutely! However, they'll need to satisfy some very interesting conditions here. Go ahead and let the Wizard rest and redo their spell selection for the day. They'll probably pick either Fly or Summon Monster III to deal with the chasm. That's fine! Here's where the big 'if' comes in. Once the PC gets to the chasm edge and casts either Fly or Summon Monster III (bringing in a Dire Bat they plan to use as a flying mount)... you as GM say the following:
"Okay. So now your Wizard character is flying (or "riding on a flying mount"). Would you, the player, please stand up and show us how your aviation experience translates to this situation?" Be utterly serious about this. Do not relent until you have the player either simulating Fly via running around the room with his arms outstretched and making 'nrryyeeeeooowwww' airplane noises, or frantically using his chair as a simulated airplane cockpit/dire bat hybrid that he is guiding in to a smooth landing on the other side.
If he's willing to make himself look that silly, then sure, I'd let him have it! With a circumstance bonus to boot!
|
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".
Maybe, but, it's still metagaming.
@Hama: Why is that sad?
Because he is so scared of being accused of metagaming that he has abandoned all pretense of common sense. You see a big, green scary thing in front of you. With what would you rather hit it? Your trusty flaming sword that you use against everything or a measly dagger?
I think that that is sad.
where did the flaming sword and measly dagger come from in my scenario?
He was commenting on the poor player I was dealing with, who was in exactly the state that Hama just outlined. His previous DM had apparently had such a Metagamophobic hard-on that former players in his campaign assumed that all DMs were constantly looking to use that as an excuse to punish them. So they would completely abandon any pretense of common sense in an effort to placate the DM and assure him that there was none of that going on with them, no sir!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every once in a great while someone in our group will make a comment about metagaming by another player. It is always a good-natured ribbing, not accusatory or judgmental, and usually the targeted player will sheepishly admit "Yeah, I guess that was metagaming."
It has been my observation over the years that the vast majority of metagaming is unintentional or unconscious, not some deliberate attempt to "game" the session for some sort of advantage.
In the case of most iconic monsters, including skeletons, zombies, trolls, dragons, lycanthropes, vampires, etc., the default assumption of our group is that virtually anyone who was born into and grew up in a world where such creatures were actually roaming around the landscape would know the general tendencies and vulnerabilities of those monsters. We consider it to be absolutely common sense that your average villager, much less your average adventurer, would just know that trolls are vulnerable to fire and acid, skeletons go down easier if you bludgeon them, vampires avoid daylight and silver weapons are useful against the odd man-wolf.
It is only relatively uncommon or rare monsters where I would even bother to question a PC's knowledge of how to fight them. And even then I'd be likely to err on the side of the PC knowing something that came through some old bedtime story or something. After all, I know the "proper" means of dealing with bears, cougars, snakes, alligators and a host of other wild animals just because I see and remember advice about such things. I figure your typical villager has done the same in their environment. This also covers things like recognizing commonly used spells, understanding ways to deal with invisibility, and knowing about the existence and basic use of a wide range of potions or scrolls.
I hate being a thread necromancer, but I have a question regarding a specific scenario.
It contains spoilers for the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment, so don't read unless you've played it or are a GM.
Let's say I'm playing a ranger with demons as his favored enemy. Let's call him Jim.
Now then, the villain of this scenario is actually a demon. Out of character, having played this scenario before, I'm well aware of this, but in-character, Jim is not.
My question: Could a familiar player ask a GM to make some sort of check for Jim to smell a rat? Some kind of Sense Motive checks?
On the subject of metagaming...
I played a sorc once who failed a Knowledge check to recognize a holy symbol. In-character, he was utterly clueless and asked a villager, but OOC, I immediately recognized the symbol as belonging to Lamashtu.
Sometimes you just have to know how to separate IC from OOC.
Although I don't think that the game should be completely based on chance, ever. The GM should throw the players a bone sometimes, or else common sense can kick in for the PC's. Or, as I just mentioned, prior knowledge can be translated into an in-character gut feeling, to be confirmed of denied at the GM's discretion.
The game should never, EVER be 100% random. The GameMastery guide spells that out quite clearly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Apologies for such a late response, I lost track of this thread! :)
I agree that it can sometimes be better to stop the game and have a discussion with the GM saying something like "Hey, it looks like we are getting stonewalled here, with no clue how this puzzle works, and I think frustration is beginning to sap some of the fun away. Could you give us some hints, or clue us in on an alternative course of action we could take?"
However, other times that may not be practicable, for example if playing in a convention game where time is short, breaking for a discussion may not be practical, and may also break the flow of the game. If the GM is a stranger it may cause offence, or the GM may simply be stubborn and say "Tough, the clues were all there, you either figure it out or the heroes will have to go back to town as failures".
In some instances it may be better to metagame to get on with the plot and then bring up the issue after the session where there is time to discuss how the situation could have been better handled. Sort of like how a GM makes a spot ruling to keep the game rolling and then takes the time to look up the correct rule afterwards and / or discuss potential house rules.
Metagame can never be good.
I take it you don't play PFS then? Because if you do, you as a player have to abide by certain metagame rules, for example No Player-versus-Player Combat even if it seems something your character would do - e.g. an Andoran freedom fighter barbarian PC slapping a Cheliax PC who is boasting about the number of slaves he used to own.
Equally, if you joined in a PFS scenario at a convention and all the other players knew each other, and their characters had all adventured together lots, would you really want to spend 15 minutes of precious game time having those players petition the venture captain to exclude your character from the mission because your PC is not part of their "team"?
Even if that makes sense in character (e.g. your PC is much less experienced, level 1 compared to their level 5, or you are a wizard specialising in necromancy magic and the team are all worshippers of Pharasma)?
No, there are metagame assumptions that all player character will take part in the mission (indeed a minimum number are required for a game to be considered legal). And there are also courtesy metagame decisions such as knowing you only have 4 hours to get through the scenario so PCs shouldn't engage on courses of actions that waste too much time but don't work towards achieving the mission goal.
The PFS guide even outright states:
However, “that’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
So yeah, I simply cannot agree that metagaming "can never be good".
As I mentioned, some metagame knowledge can possibly add to the experience. Prior knowledge of a given scenario can translate to an in-character hunch, you just have to roleplay that while they're suspicious, they aren't 100% if their suspicions are correct. For instance, the example I gave of the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. Something like that seems like it could make for an interesting story element, and to me seems like a perfect blend of in-character and OOC. You aren't abusing your knowledge, but you are applying bits and pieces of it— but never the entirety— to your PC.
It seems to me like the key phrase to live by is "be careful." Don't go overboard and make your PC omniscient, but learn to separate your IC and OOC knowledge to a degree that your OOC knowledge given to the character does make sense.
(Holy crap a thought-out opinion)
If it enhances the game, and especially the fun for everyone at the table, it's good.
If it decreases either it's bad.
Sometimes it might not be clear which it does.
Imagine the following situation: You are in a gaming group and start an adventure. One player plays a total jerk pc. Now you have two possible ways of solving it: You treat him (the pc) like the jerk he is and give him the boot. That will increase your fun but decreases the other player's fun.
Or you could metagame and suffer the other pc being a jerk and endure it, which will decrease your fun and increase the other one's fun.
If it is a purely ingame conflict it comes down to those two choices.
If it is an ingame and outgame conflict because the other player is not only playing a jerk but is one himself you can try to solve it outgame.
I played in Grimm this Paizocon as a Bully. There were a few riddles, and while I couldn't answer any, I did come up with a few important points.
The riddles were a team exercise, not an Imagination test or a Nerd-only activity. The Jock's player ended up coming up with one of the answers, so he handed it to the Nerd to say because it made more sense in character.
Had our GM said, "Sorry, you, the Popular Kid and the Bully don't get to take part because you aren't smart enough," we would have spent fifteen minutes waiting for the others to get it.
Is that our 'punishment' for choosing low intelligence characters?
Or is it the mark of a paranoid GM who thinks anybody with low mental stats is a no-good minmaxer who must be taught a lesson in roleplay? Judging by the repeated phrase "+5% damage per second", I'd say the latter. Low Intelligence already has a stat consequence. Leave the roleplay to the players. If you don't want half the players participating in riddle challenges, just make it an Intelligence check.
How low does Intelligence get before you ban them from roleplaying during those riddle periods? 5? 8? Will I get kicked out of the room (metaphorically) if I only gave myself a 9? Am I thus incapable of ever coming up with the answer?
There are plenty of ways to roleplay low Intelligence, Charisma and Wisdom. Don't try to tell the player how to do it, or they'll just stop playing characters with those low stats.
Let's just keep in mind that riddle-solving is not actually tied so firmly to Intelligence. Bilbo excelled at riddles, and his score was likely no higher than 14. One could argue that, despite that score, he was better than many much smarter than him just by virtue of his mindset and practice.
Riddle-solving is a matter of looking at things with fresh perspective and of being experienced with riddles. Even the thickest oaf might be surprisingly good at riddles thanks to having been the guest of a copper dragon for a year.
"Oh, I've heard this one! It's a magical ring that turns you invisible and drives any who look upon it mad with desire originally owned by an extremely powerful being who now seeks to retrieve it that he may cover the free lands in darkness! Yeah, that one used to stump me."
So there is a point where metagaming is virtually impossible, and solving puzzles is definitely one of the main areas you run into this.
What I try to do is deal with the metagaming by asking myself not "what is the answer to this riddle" so much as "what would my character think the answer to this riddle would be?"
The thing is that riddle/puzzle solving is a very enjoyable aspect of the game for many people. I love it myself, both as a player and a GM. I get tired of the hack and slash and really appreciate when the GM takes the time and effort to make the players engage more than their weapons.
As I said earlier in the thread, sometimes the result of this is that I, as a player, will suggest an answer to the riddle to the player of a more appropriate character. I frequently do that with notes passed in private.
Don't try to tell the player how to do it, or they'll just stop playing characters with those low stats.
That's what they want.
Anyone with a mental stat below 10 is a filthy power gamer. They should stop dumping stats so they can be better at roleplaying, obviously.
The Wizard dumping Str doesn't matter though. Doesn't affect his RP so it's cool lol. In fact, the Wiz is a better RPer because his Int is higher.
Besides all this, what people should keep in mind is that the 5 Int barbarian wasn't having his character work out the answer. He was more hinting by having the barbarian play with the 'little doll'. That's completely in character.
The only metagaming I think is "good" metagaming is character creation: coming up with a party that will work really wel together, be interesting together, or both.
Everything else falls under the domain of either "acceptable" or "unacceptable" to me. Investigating a pair of statues by the door because I took the time to describe them, even if realistically speaking you have no reason to expect that they will come alive when you touch the treasure, is acceptable metagaming.
Going out and buying a bag full of Scrolls of Acid Resistance because YOU are pretty sure the BBEG is a Black Dragon but your character is not and has no idea what a black dragon's breath weapon is, is unacceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So there is a point where metagaming is virtually impossible, and solving puzzles is definitely one of the main areas you run into this.
What I try to do is deal with the metagaming by asking myself not "what is the answer to this riddle" so much as "what would my character think the answer to this riddle would be?"
The thing is that riddle/puzzle solving is a very enjoyable aspect of the game for many people. I love it myself, both as a player and a GM. I get tired of the hack and slash and really appreciate when the GM takes the time and effort to make the players engage more than their weapons.
As I said earlier in the thread, sometimes the result of this is that I, as a player, will suggest an answer to the riddle to the player of a more appropriate character. I frequently do that with notes passed in private.
I love riddles but I wouldn't include one as a quest-related obstacle because the story would grind to a halt if my players were stumped. At tables where everyone loves/is good at riddles I'm sure this would fly, but for me, I don't think it would. I'd prefer to limit player challenges to strategic thinking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lousy riddle solving is about 90% "have I heard this one before".
Fixed that for you. A good riddle can be sussed out by thinking outside the box -- I've always been pretty good at that.
That said, they're lousy in games because they end up testing the PLAYER's ability to solve riddles, not the PC's ability. We don't make the player actually climb a wall when rolling for the climb skill, but we make the player solve the riddle? That makes no sense.
In my home game, I rolled Knowledge (History), Appraise, and 2e bardic knowledge into a catchall "Knowledge (Lore)" skill. When there's a riddle, a PC of high intelligence (roughly on a par with the player's or greater) can roll against the skill, or the players can try and solve the riddle themselves. PCs who are arguably dumber than the players have to resort to the skill. (Needless to say, riddles aren't all that common.)
|
|
Kirth Gersen: I agree about the wallclimbing versus riddle example! Thank you for your succinct example!
Another metagaming-for-the-common-good example is:
You're playing in an AP that requires characters to have specific interests or skills.
Your fellow players are new to roleplaying in general and haven't any idea about much of what's different between Golarion and your standard Forgotten Realms setting.
You create a character and help foster immersion, and sort of guide the party to where they probably want to end up anyway.
(Like...taking Knowledge Nobility in CotCT, perhaps? Having your character be a former city guard? Stuff like that.)
I'd also like to add when it improves party cohesion.
That way you don't have to deal with b##$@~!% like:
"My Orc Barbarian introduces himself from across the room."
"I cast Sleet Storm so it'll take him forever to get over here. Tee hee. Sorry it's what my char would do!"
Still mad I didn't remember I could Spell Sunder until after I was already out. Though if I had I probably would've smashed the guy with a HAMMAH so perhaps it's all for the best.
I played in Grimm this Paizocon as a Bully. There were a few riddles, and while I couldn't answer any, I did come up with a few important points.
The riddles were a team exercise, not an Imagination test or a Nerd-only activity. The Jock's player ended up coming up with one of the answers, so he handed it to the Nerd to say because it made more sense in character.
Had our GM said, "Sorry, you, the Popular Kid and the Bully don't get to take part because you aren't smart enough," we would have spent fifteen minutes waiting for the others to get it.
Is that our 'punishment' for choosing low intelligence characters?
Or is it the mark of a paranoid GM who thinks anybody with low mental stats is a no-good minmaxer who must be taught a lesson in roleplay? Judging by the repeated phrase "+5% damage per second", I'd say the latter. Low Intelligence already has a stat consequence. Leave the roleplay to the players. If you don't want half the players participating in riddle challenges, just make it an Intelligence check.
How low does Intelligence get before you ban them from roleplaying during those riddle periods? 5? 8? Will I get kicked out of the room (metaphorically) if I only gave myself a 9? Am I thus incapable of ever coming up with the answer?
There are plenty of ways to roleplay low Intelligence, Charisma and Wisdom. Don't try to tell the player how to do it, or they'll just stop playing characters with those low stats.
interesting situation. Interesting way of handling it.
Still hate metagaming, but. .. it's interesting.
One could argue that even a low-intelligence character may have heard a riddle before, or had some experience that brought the answer to mind, sort of like Slum Dog Millionaire (although that character wasn't low int necessarily, he knew all the answers to the questions because he happened to know them, not because he was highly educated).
Ellis basically summed up my point: Riddle solving (and creating) is less about intellect and more about imagination, different ways of thinking and just plain practice.
My big problem with this argument, though, is how many people are saying "giving players riddles is bad" or "solving riddles your character might not know is bad". It may be bad for some people's games, but I've had a lot of success with riddles--they give the roleplay-oriented players a chance to shine, and the players who aren't as into the main game often get invested in a well-crafted mind game.
Let's not be snobby here. Riddles, like grimdark campaigns, or "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic", work for some and not for others.
Still hate metagaming, but. .. it's interesting.
If taking part in the game whenever my character is present is metagaming, then yes, I am a shameless metagamer. Since this revelation means I can no longer trust myself to be alone with my gaming books, I guess I'll have to burn them. Anyone got a light?
If taking part in the game whenever my character is present is metagaming, then yes, I am a shameless metagamer. Since this revelation means I can no longer trust myself to be alone with my gaming books, I guess I'll have to burn them. Anyone got a light?Still hate metagaming, but. .. it's interesting.
I wouldn't call that metagaming, but its close. No need to burn your books yet.
Too late. My house is now on fire. Send help.
I've never met anyone who's ridiculously anti-metagame crazy, but then I've only played PFS.
Too late. My house is now on fire. Send help.
Here to assist!
*backs oil tanker into burning house*
Look how much bigger it is! Aren't you glad I helped?!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize you're responding to a 9 year old thread, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize you're responding to a 9 year old thread, right?
Which allowed me to find it and it was interesting, so thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player 1: "Hey DM, how much longer will we go today?"
DM: "A few more hours."
Player 1: "Do you want me to order a pizza?"
DM: "Yes."
--- Notes: The above is meant to be interpreted as an example of good metagaming. If you do not think it is a good example, then I'll be over here eating pizza, interested in reading your replies. Thank you, have a good day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I somehow missed this convo when it originally went up and it is interesting.
For me it all boils down to whether it enhances the cooperative aspect of play (good) or is distinct uncooperativeness to get a bonus/shortcut (i.e., cheat). For former benefits everyone at the table, both GM and players alike, and the latter is for self-benefit only. Most of the examples of "good" metagaming is about helping one another along so you can get to the fun parts of playing.
One of the things I've paid more attention the older I get/longer I game is trying to pick up on plot threads that I think the GM wants us to follow--and actually work to pick up and follow them. I used to be in gaming groups where I think the players took it as a point of pride if they could derail the plot. Now, sometimes it was just accidental--players notice something intended to be little more than a flavorful detail and then would chase that because it seemed interesting to them. If a GM was willing to run with it and wing it, that was all well and good. But I've also seen things where it's obvious where the GM is trying to take us, and someone (who in the past may even have been me) is doing everything they can to avoid that one direction, which can be extremely frustrating to the GM (which in the past may have also been me, but not at the same time) who doesn't feel experienced or prepared enough to wing an alternative adventure or who is working off what they have in a module or something. And while nobody likes feeling overly railroaded, nobody also likes having the adventure screech to a halt because a player is being recalcitrant. These days if I do pick up on where I think the GM is pushing us, I generally either come up with a reason to go along just to keep us all moving... or if I feel like for whatever reason I or my character wouldn't go down that path, I will speak with the GM: "Hey, I can tell you probably want us to go into the dark spooky house, but my PC with her backstory of hating dark spooky houses would never go in there. Can we work together to find a way this would make sense for her?" or "Hey, this is feeling a little overly railroady, do we have some alternatives here? Or should we just go along with it and more branches will happen later?" And as a GM I am also much more ready to say, "Guys, I don't have a plan if you don't do this thing, and I don't have the bandwidth to wing it. So if you don't do this thing, the session's done for the day and we can play a board game instead. Are you okay with that?"
The guy running the wizard, seeing the spell effect from the statue, goes "I got a... 34 on a Spellcraft check; can I tell what spell that is?"
I politely turn to the player and proclaim "it isn't a spell you, (insert player's name here) know b/c I just made this up based on advancing the damage and poison effect of the CR 2 poisoned dart trap that used to be in this statue." I then go back to running the scene and the PCs finish the fight.
I get what you're saying (that you make clear to the players you homebrew and/or use the rules to make reasonable modifications to statblocks that may not be immediately apparent). But to be fair to your player, I can see why his character (not the player), seeing something with such a powerful poison, might presume it's magical without having examined the trap further. And a GM could very reasonably respond to the player, "Based on your PC's supreme knowledge of magic, your PC is absolutely certain it is not magical in any way, despite how powerful it appears to be. You can attempt a trained Knowledge Engineering check if you want to understand the mechanism better."
I definitely get the frustration of players trying to figure out what something is or what its stats are, etc. based on previous game experience. It's distracting at best and detrimental to gameplay at worst. I once ran a game, early when Pathfinder came out so I was basically running with the three core books alone, and I had in fact made clear to the players I might homebrew some things to give me more toys to play with. They had played a ton of previous editions of D&D--much more than I had actually--and they were constantly trying to guess what monster I had thrown at them, apparently assuming everything I homebrewed was a conversion of a monster from D&D. While occasionally I did convert some 3.5 monsters or other things, I often just reflavored or tweaked Pathfinder stats to make something up new, and they would declare I was throwing some kind of monster or effect at them that I had never even heard of. What baffled me especially was when they were certain I was using a version of something from AD&D 1st Ed, which I never actually played and never owned the books for, and they knew that. The irony was of course by constantly attempting to metagame, they were screwing themselves over because they would imagine something had a completely different set of stats than it actually had. I'm actually not very good at designing combats (though I've improved with time, I was definitely not good at it back then) but they often fared less than they could have in combat because they were metagaming tactics for an entirely different situation than the one I was actually presenting them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm making meatballs for lunch tomorrow.