Metagaming: player knowledge vs. Society knowledge

[Paz]

I'm trying to work something out, and would appreciate input from others. I'll try to keep this post spoiler-free.

I have accrued various pieces of knowledge over the last couple of years through playing/GMing PFS scenarios:

a) In a season 2 scenario, I (as PC-1) encountered a notorious enemy of the Pathfinder Society, who was a member of a particular group, and brought that enemy to justice. My PC got a good look at that enemy's abilities and tactics. Since then I have GMed the scenario in question and applied credit to another PC (PC-2).

b) When GMing a season 4 scenario, I became aware that this enemy was seemingly 'at large' again, and working with a different group. I haven't been a player in this scenario, but I applied GM credit to PC-3.

c) Through general awareness of being active in PFS, I've become aware that a certain scenario (that I'm due to play as PC-3 in a week or two) features the two groups that this enemy has been associated with, so it's reasonable to conclude that the enemy in question may well be involved (although I don't know for sure).

I want to be prepared when I play through this scenario, but I'm feeling a bit anxious about straying into metagaming. What I'm not clear on is how much player knowledge is 'fair' to bring to the table? (a) and (b) both feature information that would have been reported back to the Pathfinder Society Venture-Captain (and maybe even Decemvirate); is it reasonable to assume that field agents going in to harm's way would be made aware of this link?

When does foreshadowing and clever play become metagaming?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Use knowledge the character would have only.

My first character played through two scenarios from season 2 that if experienced correctly could give info for a season 4 scenario. The BBEG didn't have a chance to reveal the tactics because of a round one blindness. So should my character have been able to play, he would not have any info on the BBEG for season 4 scenario.

Don't assume the society itself prepares its pathfinders beyond what the individual scenarios stipulate.

[Charlie Bell]

IMO it's not metagaming if your character has actually encountered this individual before.

There are certain whodunit type scenarios that if you have played later scenarios in the arc, you may already know whodidit. It's probably a good idea to ask the GM if the scenario is part of a story arc, and if so, whether it comes before or after any scenarios you've already played. If it comes before scenarios you've already played, you shouldn't use knowledge from those scenarios.

Spoiler:

For instance, if you have already played Fortress of the Nail, you shouldn't use that knowledge of who the culprit was if you later play The Disappeared.

[Paz]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Use knowledge the character would have only.

So if a character receives GM credit from a scenario, is the GM knowledge gained assumed to also be character knowledge?

[Chris Mortika]

I would think so, yes, the same as the boons, gold, prestige, etc.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Paz wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Use knowledge the character would have only.

So if a character receives GM credit from a scenario, is the GM knowledge gained assumed to also be character knowledge?

I'd say so. The assumption is (especially with the character getting whatever Boons the GM wants to give them) that the character experienced that scenario.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

Also, if said person is involved in the scenario and you know it at the VC briefing, you can always ask if the VC knows anything about said person's abilities...

[Fromper]

Just roll your knowledge (metagame) skill and see how much you know.

[N N 959]

And as far as GM credit knowledge, that's not so cut and dry. I'd think your character would know what a similar character who had completed the mission would know. Do all characters who complete said missions exit with the information you have? As Andrew points out, if characters never got a chance to obtain information from a previous scenario, I don't know it's clear a GM credit character would have total and complete knowledge.

Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether the knowledge you bring by way of GM credit will positively or negatively affect the party's experience. There have been a few scenarios I've played where one of the characters seemed to perfectly anticipate everything that was going to happen. Had the right mundane item, knew when to search, seemingly knew where to go. I didn't ask, but I suspect that character had GM'd the scenario, or read a bunch of the spoiler/reviews. I did not enjoy those experiences as a fellow player.

[Idris Runasdottir]

When it comes to BBEG's stats and abilities, as long as you don't give specifics but rather a general overview I think you're ok. For example, "Whoa guys, I fought him before and he likes his traps and poisons, watch out" not "He has X amount of hp and his AC is Z."

I've run something and then played it, and in that case I tend to let people who haven't take the leadership role. And I only allow my metagame knowledge to come into play if my character can safely infer what might come up.

For example:

Severing Ties, you're heading into the headquarters to "broke"r a deal with a group of highly paranoid, suspicious cultists. She's going to expect trouble and prepares for all kinds of traps and spells. That's common sense. I do not, however, try to acquire any form of stone to flesh before the mission. That's metagaming.