|
if I - as a player ask you - as a player - for information about your character - then for you to role play the reply in character would seem odd.
Me:"Joe, how's your Tank doing? Need a 2 dice Channel or a Cure Crit.?"
Joe: "Dear Lady, I have been wounded this much in the VC briefing room! This creature is sure to fall shortly and I will easily be able to withstand it's blows until then."
Judge: "Joe, roll your attack"
Joe: "With my trusty longsword, Mule Cleaver, I strike the verminous creature a staggering blow, dealing a vicious wound to the thorax, causing ichorous fluids to splash in a wide arch across my ..."
Judge: "what'd you roll, Joe?"
Joe - in a different voice: "ah... a 7, but I'm plus 5"
Judge: "you missed. From your discription I figured you hit...
Joe - "well... Sir Issack tends to emblish his combat abilities - "
Judge: "Who's next?"Worse yet, if it is in the middle of a combat round, while entertaining for both me and you, it is likely to really slow (in real time, not PC time) the encounter down, something that might not be as entertaining to the other players (or the judge). If I ask you how your PC looks out of character, tell me out of character.
If I (out of character) ask the rest of the players which of them has a PC with the best charasm - the guy who says "I'm really good at dat" is doing a disservice to the other players. My only way to get information about the PC is to ask the player about the PC... the way it looks, the way it smells, how it's dressed and how charming it is - all this is information my PC would know that I, as the player, have to ask about. And I, the player, speak in Gamer, even when my PC only speaks Talden (that would be Common).
Besides, to me, requiring someone (a player) to speak the way I want them to feels like it is too close to requireing them to play the way I want them to... which is only one step removed from "you are playing the wrong way!" and "you are having bad/wrong fun!" which is something I never want...
Has the above scenario ever really happened to you? And, if so, how many times, relative to the number of times combat has been bogged down by either:
1.) arguing over rules where the 'correct call' is likely have very little to do with whether or not all characters will survive and complete the encounter sucessfully.2.) Having to 'reel in' a player who, instead of planning his/her character's next action, has been:
a.) discussing rules with another player at the table
b.) surfing the internet
c.) paying attention to some other non-vital distraction.
this is actually a surprisingly old argument about HP "how do I describe them in character" and "what does HP damage look like from my character's POV" (or some such rubbish). Ultimately, what it comes down to is accepting that HP are an abstraction, and roll with it. You should accept that some people will say "I'm down 47 HP." and some will say "I'm horrifically wounded." both are valid, and neither are superior to the other.
If you fail when you thought you would have succeeded, don't go looking up monster stats on the PRD during the next two people's turns and then interrupting combat to ask what the DC (or whatever) was. You don't know what templates, class levels, or other special circumstances might be modifying the base creature.
*Looks guilty*
Do you also grab the info off sheets, record damage taken for each PC, and only tell them that the hit they just took only hurt a little or a lot?
Nope, I tell them how much damage they took and let them track their own hit points, that way they can accurately describe the extent of their injuries to the healer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm going to cast a spell. Can I borrow your Core Rulebook so I can look it up and see what it does?"
"Do you know what this feat I took does?"
"Do you know what this magic item I bought does?"
"Is it a (fill in what the bane weapon is effective against)?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use Science on him.
-j
It's entirely possible that the quoted statement reflects neither a distaste for nonviolence nor a hatred for any given people group. Flamebait much?I use diplomacy on him.So are you against players who want to resolve encounters without violence, or do you just hate people who don't (for any given reason) RP said use of Diplomacy?
I honestly saw the post I was quoting as the actual flamebait.
Seriously, what's wrong with a player just wanting to use Diplomacy?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's entirely possible that the quoted statement reflects neither a distaste for nonviolence nor a hatred for any given people group. Flamebait much?I use diplomacy on him.So are you against players who want to resolve encounters without violence, or do you just hate people who don't (for any given reason) RP said use of Diplomacy?I honestly saw the post I was quoting as the actual flamebait.
Seriously, what's wrong with a player just wanting to use Diplomacy?
Now, see, that's a better post.
"What's wrong with X?" <--Good way to challenge a preference you don't like.
"Are you against X or do you just hate people who Y?" <--Bad way to challenge a preference you don't like.
"Is it a (fill in what the bane weapon is effective against)?"What's wrong with this one?
When its asked at EVERY encounter, even encounters with monsters that have been fought before or monsters that are obviously not the bane weapon's creature.
|
|
While I sympathize with you I strongly believe that you are wrong.Then we must agree to disagree. Players should not treat their PCs as buckets of numbers.
All of my players seem to appreciate the reduction in metagaming and increase in pseudo-realism at the table. At GenCon many of my players also said they were going to steal these policies for use at their own tables.
The description of this as metagaming is very troubling to me.
In a convention setting the environment is very loud. Doing things in a concrete fashion that references the rules of the game is not metagaming. My character perceives the world in in-game terms. I understand what my character perceives using the bucket of numbers. Those buckets of numbers are not meta-gaming, they are the way the game becomes more than freeform roleplay.
In home games where you know everyone has a similar idea of what's fun, great. Do you also grab the info off sheets, record damage taken for each PC, and only tell them that the hit they just took only hurt a little or a lot?
Uh, that's the very definition of metagaming.
Metagaming is not always bad. It can have its place.
But let's not try to define metagaming as other than it is.
When its asked at EVERY encounter, even encounters with monsters that have been fought before or monsters that are obviously not the bane weapon's creature."Is it a (fill in what the bane weapon is effective against)?"What's wrong with this one?
When playing my Giant-slaying Inquisitor Ranger/Titan Mauler Barbarian, I always say my Perception check is "X, +2 if its a Giant", but only because she has NEVER ONCE encountered anything with the Giant sub-type. Which stung all the more when I ran a certain module full of them and ended up giving her the GM credit.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Wait, I thought metagaming only referred to certain methods of decision-making, not description...?
Time for research!
Wikipedia: "In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions."
That doesn't sound like what's being discussed here, to me. At least, in regards to HP. If (in-character) a PC didn't know who was the best at Skill X but the players exchanged numbers to find out and then acted on that OOC info, that's metagaming.
But if the PCs can perceive a given level of injury and how it relates to the level of healing magic required, then any means of getting the players caught up to what the characters already know—even if it's communicated in mechanical terms—is NOT metagaming, since any actions/decisions are based on information the characters themselves really do have (even if in another form).
So, at least according to Wikipedia's definition (which had also been my understanding), simply using mechanical terms to communicate is not metagaming unless it reflects knowledge that the characters don't have access to—and in the case of visible injury, that's not the case.
Do other folks have a different meaning for "metagaming"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh... as usual, people take a sentence and concoct the most extreme example of it, and hold it up as if it was what the person meant.
To me, numbers are a necessary evil for an immersive roleplaying game - without them, it's just storytelling. But every time a game-mechanic-number is used, I am jerked out of Golarion and back to an ordinary table, in an ordinary room, with ordinary people pushing plastic toys around a piece of paper. Anything that reduces that without destroying the game is a good thing in my books.
Yes, we need to sue numbers - but in many cases, people use numbers because they just haven't been shown another way to do it, because they were taught RPGs from computer games or tactical miniature games (both of which I love, BTW). Roleplaying can, in my experience, lead to a much richer, immersive, and exciting experience that just quoting game stats.
YMMV - in which case, enjoy it the way you do it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But every time a game-mechanic-number is used, I am jerked out of Golarion
Interestingly, this doesn't seem to be the case for me. When I hear something mechanical, my mind reflexively (with no conscious effort) translates it into an in-character mental image.
The thing that can sometimes shake me out of Golarion is if someone's description is slow/wordy enough that I'm sort of mentally "waiting" to finish visualizing the scene.
Aren't differences fascinating? :)
|
|
An example of Meta-gaming...maybe?: I saw this in a game not to long ago, a group of experienced players, who know as players that they need to hit skeletons with blunt weapons NOT USING blunt weapons because no one at the table had Knowledge Religion - so... a bunch of players felt constrained to try to prevent "meta-gaming"... They knew that the monsters weren't taking full damage, but restricted their PCs, because they knew what to do (as players)- so they didn't do it (as PCs). The player "meta" knowledge constrained thier PCs actions ... If the monster had been something called a "Green Wiglet" and they noticed it wasn't takeing full damage they would have switched to different/back up weapons to try to find the DR type. It would have been a "puzzle" they would have enjoyed solving! (I can almost hear the table talk now..."Not Silver Blunt! switching to a Magic Slashing! You got that oil applied yet? Think it might be DR/Good then?")
Heck, these were not low level PCs! They all had blunt weapons on them (as well as magic, etc.)! they just were afread to appear to be Meta-gaming....
Another example I commonly see along these lines is when a player is playing a mod they have already DMed. Their character takes a back seat, tries to avoid being the party face (even when they are the best one for the job), and avoids making important decisions because they are attempting to avoid accidently using the Metagame knowledge they gained by having run the mod before.
Seriously, what's wrong with a player just wanting to use Diplomacy?
"Wrong" is a word that entails certain objetivity, but to answer you question I personally just do not like that style.
Another example I commonly see along these lines is when a player is playing a mod they have already DMed. Their character takes a back seat, tries to avoid being the party face (even when they are the best one for the job), and avoids making important decisions because they are attempting to avoid accidently using the Metagame knowledge they gained by having run the mod before.
Which is probably the least bad way to go about it.
Also why I like to do scenarios like that on my int 7 wis 7 sorcerer. No one WANTS to consider his opinion on anything and he needs to be aimed at the NPCs like a diplomacy nuke.
|
|
But every time a game-mechanic-number is used, I am jerked out of GolarionInterestingly, this doesn't seem to be the case for me. When I hear something mechanical, my mind reflexively (with no conscious effort) translates it into an in-character mental image.
The thing that can sometimes shake me out of Golarion is if someone's description is slow/wordy enough that I'm sort of mentally "waiting" to finish visualizing the scene.
Aren't differences fascinating? :)
I often go to lunch with other PFS gamers - you know friends. And my wife games too. so often in "real life" we will translate that to game terms.
Can't find your keys? Missed a turn? "missed your perception check" or "got WIS damage from staying up to late?"
We do this because we all know "gamer speak"...we speak the same language.
No doubt with a smattering of Monty Python quotes thrown in for good measure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM After defeating the goblins, the hirelings, and Nualia and her unholy terrors, you return to Sandpoint. Ameiko and Sheriff Hemlock are waiting for you by the gate.
Player 1 So what now?
Player 2 ....
Player 3 I don't know. Doesn't the DM tell us what happens next.
Most annoying thing, for me, is when the players don't do anything. Especially when it was advertised as a sandbox campaign.
There is no phrase in the world more aggravating to me as a GM (or even as a player) when the rogue at the table says "I go into stealth" while in the middle of a wide-open, well-lit chamber. How difficult can it be to understand that hiding requires, well, something to hide behind? Most players who do this are repeat offenders, too. They go "Oh, okay." when their mistake is pointed out, and then attempt it again while marching down the center of the next well-lit hallway, fifteen feet in front of the paladin in full plate.
I have a player that is like that (although he recently moved out of town for a new job, so we probably won't be playing anymore for awhile) I tend to let him get away with it just because it's easier to do so than to hold up the game for twenty minutes debating how Stealth works. But, he usually sets his rogues up to be snipers, maxes out his stealth, stealth feats, etc. Even takes the sniper archetype. The party just assumes he's following when they travel because he's ALWAYS stealthed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, I thought metagaming only referred to certain methods of decision-making, not description...?
Time for research!
Wikipedia: "In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions."
That doesn't sound like what's being discussed here, to me. At least, in regards to HP. If (in-character) a PC didn't know who was the best at Skill X but the players exchanged numbers to find out and then acted on that OOC info, that's metagaming.
But if the PCs can perceive a given level of injury and how it relates to the level of healing magic required, then any means of getting the players caught up to what the characters already know—even if it's communicated in mechanical terms—is NOT metagaming, since any actions/decisions are based on information the characters themselves really do have (even if in another form).
So, at least according to Wikipedia's definition (which had also been my understanding), simply using mechanical terms to communicate is not metagaming unless it reflects knowledge that the characters don't have access to—and in the case of visible injury, that's not the case.
Do other folks have a different meaning for "metagaming"?
I don't even see using info about skill bonuses as meta gaming. In a real world setting you would be able to say "I qualified expert on that weapon" "I'm a climbing/swimming/whatever instructor/Olympic medalist" "I literally had a customer bring me cupcakes after I sold her a computer"
It is easy enough to figure out who is best at a skill in a practical manner in real life. Why can't PC's be practical too?
Another thing that annoys me is when players just assume they know something in character. Like for example, when the tongues cursed oracle meets a young girl and a cleric is doing some tests on her to see what's wrong with her and why her body temperature is so cold, the player is like "OH she's a black-blooded oracle, her blood is black runs cold and she's got a negative energy affinity as if she were undead" like being a level 3 oracle gives him an automatic 30 on all oracle related things. Then when I say he needs to make a roll and he gets a 29 (rolled a 20 and had a +9 bonus), as I decided that black-blooded oracles are DC 30 to know about outside of the darklands, he got even more mad trying to say no DC can be higher than 25, forcing me to pull out the book to show him the DC can be as high as 30. Which, yeah me being the GM should have made the 30 DC okay, but he thought he shouldn't have needed the roll in the first place, he's not going to accept an impossible at his level DC.
|
|
Wait, I thought metagaming only referred to certain methods of decision-making, not description...?
Time for research!
Wikipedia: "In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions."
That doesn't sound like what's being discussed here, to me. At least, in regards to HP. If (in-character) a PC didn't know who was the best at Skill X but the players exchanged numbers to find out and then acted on that OOC info, that's metagaming.
But if the PCs can perceive a given level of injury and how it relates to the level of healing magic required, then any means of getting the players caught up to what the characters already know—even if it's communicated in mechanical terms—is NOT metagaming, since any actions/decisions are based on information the characters themselves really do have (even if in another form).
So, at least according to Wikipedia's definition (which had also been my understanding), simply using mechanical terms to communicate is not metagaming unless it reflects knowledge that the characters don't have access to—and in the case of visible injury, that's not the case.
Do other folks have a different meaning for "metagaming"?
I don't even see using info about skill bonuses as meta gaming. In a real world setting you would be able to say "I qualified expert on that weapon" "I'm a climbing/swimming/whatever instructor/Olympic medalist" "I literally had a customer bring me cupcakes after I sold her a computer"
It is easy enough to figure out who is best at a skill in a practical manner in real life. Why can't PC's be practical too?
I am unclear as to what you are saying here.
Are you saying that it isn't metagaming to say, "I have a +15 Diplomacy, so everyone assist me."
Or are you saying that the same statement should be said, "I'm an expert at diplomacizing folks, so everyone huddle around and I'll tell you what I need you to do."
In any case, if raw numbers are being used in the context of game play, between players, in the context that they are discussing in character what spell to cast, or whether to channel, or whatever, then yeah, that's metagaming.
Using in game terms like Critical, Serious, Moderate, and Light are probably pretty good indicators to a cleric how damaged you are.
"Hey Kyra, I'm kinda critically wounded over here, can't you see my blood staining every piece of furniture in the room? I could use some potent assistance."
or
"Nah, don't worry about me Kyra, tis but a light scratch."
It is not meta gaming to use game numbers anymore than I "meta game" my job when I tell my boss to give me a raise because my store's EBITA was up 3 basis points more than any other in the district.
The game world works with these numbers, people in that world should be able to understand the mechanics of their own universe.
Scrolls cost *exactly* CL*SL*12.5gp to make. Characters in that universe know that. Therefore they know things like spell level and caster level. They know that these are finite, definable terms with no ambiguity. They know that bull's strength gives you a 10% better chance to hit someone with a sword. Suggesting that characters are not aware of the mechanics which govern their world is just silly.
Saying "I have a +10 to diplomacy" in character us no different than saying "I went running and burned 400 calories."
|
|
actually BigDTBone, that's exactly the definition of metagaming.
In character, if you want to say, I ran 30', or whatever, that's fine.
If it is something you could see yourself saying in real life, then its not metagaming.
But in real life, while I may be good at say climbing, and terrible at say swimming, I would never realistically have a conversation (except with another gamer nerd, and at that tongue in cheek)where I talked about my numerical bonus in linguistics because I had the equivalent of a 4 year college degree in Arabic from my Army training.
I'd say, I got 4 years worth of language training through the Army in 63 weeks.
I used numbers, but no declaration of, "I have a +12 in linguistics with a bonus of +4 for Ancient Osiriani".
When you take a game mechanic term, and use it as character knowledge, that is metagaming.
I'm making no particular judgement on this level of metagaming mind you.
But lets call a spade, a spade. Lets not prevaricate about this, because some feel this is an acceptable level of metagaming.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that annoys me is when players just assume they know something in character. Like for example, when the tongues cursed oracle meets a young girl and a cleric is doing some tests on her to see what's wrong with her and why her body temperature is so cold, the player is like "OH she's a black-blooded oracle, her blood is black runs cold and she's got a negative energy affinity as if she were undead" like being a level 3 oracle gives him an automatic 30 on all oracle related things. Then when I say he needs to make a roll and he gets a 29 (rolled a 20 and had a +9 bonus), as I decided that black-blooded oracles are DC 30 to know about outside of the darklands, he got even more mad trying to say no DC can be higher than 25, forcing me to pull out the book to show him the DC can be as high as 30. Which, yeah me being the GM should have made the 30 DC okay, but he thought he shouldn't have needed the roll in the first place, he's not going to accept an impossible at his level DC.
In fairness, one place where people disagree greatly is in how much of the world/rules characters know.
Practically speaking it CAN'T all be reflected in knowledge skills since some characters just don't have the skill points to buy what their character "should" know. And what skill is "know in character what druid archetypes exist and what they look like?" anyway?
I personally handle the issue by giving significant circumstance bonuses based on character background. I'd likely give an oracle at least a bit of a bonus for knowing about oracles.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not meta gaming to use game numbers anymore than I "meta game" my job when I tell my boss to give me a raise because my store's EBITA was up 3 basis points more than any other in the district.
The game world works with these numbers, people in that world should be able to understand the mechanics of their own universe.
Scrolls cost *exactly* CL*SL*12.5gp to make. Characters in that universe know that. Therefore they know things like spell level and caster level. They know that these are finite, definable terms with no ambiguity. They know that bull's strength gives you a 10% better chance to hit someone with a sword. Suggesting that characters are not aware of the mechanics which govern their world is just silly.
Saying "I have a +10 to diplomacy" in character us no different than saying "I went running and burned 400 calories."
So I have this theory that there are two schools of thought when it comes to RPGs. The realists and the rulesists.
The realists say the rules are trying to emulate our reality. In our reality someone could fall 10 feet off a building and break their neck.
The rulesists say that the games reality is defined by the rules. The reality the characters live by is not an emulation of our reality, it has it's own laws and they are different than ours. To these players everyone knows that it's impossible to die from a 10' fall (the rules say it does 1d6 damage and nobody can go to negative con from taking 6 damage).
The realists usually dislike the numbers, the numbers are the metagame. The rulesists usually love the numbers, the numbers are the game.
The argument as to weather a character knows what their numerical skill modifier is, is really an argument between these two philosophies of play.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meta gaming is using out of character knowledge to gain a benefit in game. I happen to believe that my characters should be able to express their level of expertise with their in world understanding.
I'm not privy to how characters conventionally speak about HP, spell levels, character levels, skill bonuses, etc. So I use the only vocabulary available to me which are the numbers on the page. That doesn't mean that those characters don't have a way to be precise and specific about those things. It seems what is really bothering some folks is that preciseness and specificity. Some folks want players to to make mechanical checks (a completely out of game world exercise) based on in character vagaries about how good they are at something.
Guess what? In character making a check or aiding another doesn't really happen either. "The two of us work cooperatively to break down that door" who's aiding? Who's rolling the "real" check. It's already an abstraction. Trying to suggest that how players make that decision is metagaming is ridiculous unless you are prepared to say the entire pathfinder rule set is a "metagame" and the "real" game is "adventures in Golarion" I doubt most people are prepared to make that statement.
I find it completely ridiculous to say that characters don't have any knowledge of character levels, classes, or spell levels because their world's function depends on that understanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not meta gaming to use game numbers anymore than I "meta game" my job when I tell my boss to give me a raise because my store's EBITA was up 3 basis points more than any other in the district.
The game world works with these numbers, people in that world should be able to understand the mechanics of their own universe.
Scrolls cost *exactly* CL*SL*12.5gp to make. Characters in that universe know that. Therefore they know things like spell level and caster level. They know that these are finite, definable terms with no ambiguity. They know that bull's strength gives you a 10% better chance to hit someone with a sword. Suggesting that characters are not aware of the mechanics which govern their world is just silly.
Saying "I have a +10 to diplomacy" in character us no different than saying "I went running and burned 400 calories."
So I have this theory that there are two schools of thought when it comes to RPGs. The realists and the rulesists.
The realists say the rules are trying to emulate our reality. In our reality someone could fall 10 feet off a building and break their neck.
The rulesists say that the games reality is defined by the rules. The reality the characters live by is not an emulation of our reality, it has it's own laws and they are different than ours. To these players everyone knows that it's impossible to die from a 10' fall (the rules say it does 1d6 damage and nobody can go to negative con from taking 6 damage).
The realists usually dislike the numbers, the numbers are the metagame. The rulesists usually love the numbers, the numbers are the game.
The argument as to weather a character knows what their numerical skill modifier is, is really an argument between these two philosophies of play.
The problem comes in when THE ONLY WAY to describe things that don't exist in our reality are with numbers. How do you describe spell level in our reality? With that comes the necessary ability to describe caster level. Just because there is no way to describe that in our reality doesn't mean that characters living in a world where it is real can't.
There is no published material (that I'm aware of) that tells us how characters in world describe these things. That doesn't mean that they don't, it just means that when I describe it I MUST use game numbers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess what? In character making a check or aiding another doesn't really happen either. "The two of us work cooperatively to break down that door" who's aiding? Who's rolling the "real" check. It's already an abstraction. Trying to suggest that how players make that decision is metagaming is ridiculous unless you are prepared to say the entire pathfinder rule set is a "metagame" and the "real" game is "adventures in Golarion" I doubt most people are prepared to make that statement.
This is a very good point.
The example up thread was the GM not wanting the players to compare diplomacy scores. But, in world, they are BOTH making arguments trying to convince the person. The only issue is how to resolve that mechanically which, by definition, is at the rules level.
The problem comes in when THE ONLY WAY to describe things that don't exist in our reality are with numbers. How do you describe spell level in our reality? With that comes the necessary ability to describe caster level. Just because there is no way to describe that in our reality doesn't mean that characters living in a world where it is real can't.
There is no published material (that I'm aware of) that tells us how characters in world describe these things. That doesn't mean that they don't, it just means that when I describe it I MUST use game numbers.
Describing Spell Level in character? "Fireball is a 3rd rank mystery."
Describing Caster level in character? "In order for a wizard to be able to cast a 3rd rank mystery he would need to be an initiate of the 5th circle."really it is not that hard to dance around meta-gaming. And when you put forth the effort to do so it aids with the immersion into the setting of the others at the table.
|
|
The problem comes in when THE ONLY WAY to describe things that don't exist in our reality are with numbers. How do you describe spell level in our reality? With that comes the necessary ability to describe caster level. Just because there is no way to describe that in our reality doesn't mean that characters living in a world where it is real can't.
There is no published material (that I'm aware of) that tells us how characters in world describe these things. That doesn't mean that they don't, it just means that when I describe it I MUST use game numbers.
Describing Spell Level in character? "Fireball is a 3rd rank mystery."
Describing Caster level in character? "In order for a wizard to be able to cast a 3rd rank mystery he would need to be an initiate of the 5th circle."really it is not that hard to dance around meta-gaming. And when you put forth the effort to do so it aids with the immersion into the setting of the others at the table.
Unless everyone is on the same page in regards to how you refer to mechanics in character, I could see this being really jarring and breaking my verisimilitude. I think that what DTBone is talking about just makes it that much easier to communicate with the players at large. Not everyone is a super dedicated role player, and not everyone has played since 3.5/3.0/2nd ed/1st ed/since hobbits roamed the earth. I know I'm still learning how to mix my in character and out of character behavior, and what to say at what times. Things like skill checks have a lot of table variation, even outside of diplomacy and social situations. Take a look at all the variance with Knowledge rolls.
And to contribute
...what do you think we should know about it? (Upon a successful knowledge roll to identify a creature)
...can it get past the traps I was leaving?
...I cast Snowball.
Bluff is far more dangerous than Diplomacy. Bluff can confuse guards to let you past their defenses and into the gooey center of their encampment.
The problem comes in when THE ONLY WAY to describe things that don't exist in our reality are with numbers. How do you describe spell level in our reality? With that comes the necessary ability to describe caster level. Just because there is no way to describe that in our reality doesn't mean that characters living in a world where it is real can't.
There is no published material (that I'm aware of) that tells us how characters in world describe these things. That doesn't mean that they don't, it just means that when I describe it I MUST use game numbers.
Describing Spell Level in character? "Fireball is a 3rd rank mystery."
Describing Caster level in character? "In order for a wizard to be able to cast a 3rd rank mystery he would need to be an initiate of the 5th circle."really it is not that hard to dance around meta-gaming. And when you put forth the effort to do so it aids with the immersion into the setting of the others at the table.
Unless everyone is on the same page in regards to how you refer to mechanics in character, I could see this being really jarring and breaking my verisimilitude. I think that what DTBone is talking about just makes it that much easier to communicate with the players at large. Not everyone is a super dedicated role player, and not everyone has played since 3.5/3.0/2nd ed/1st ed/since hobbits roamed the earth. I know I'm still learning how to mix my in character and out of character behavior, and what to say at what times. Things like skill checks have a lot of table variation, even outside of diplomacy and social situations. Take a look at all the variance with Knowledge rolls.
And to contribute
...what do you think we should know about it? (Upon a successful knowledge roll to identify a creature)
...can it get past the traps I was leaving?
...I cast Snowball.
For me if a player used a term I was unfamiliar with I would chalk it up (in character) as (depending on the class I am playing) either a difference in teaching methods/schools of thought (if we are both the same class) or a something pertaining to his chosen path (if we are of differing classes).
There is no phrase in the world more aggravating to me as a GM (or even as a player) when the rogue at the table says "I go into stealth" while in the middle of a wide-open, well-lit chamber. How difficult can it be to understand that hiding requires, well, something to hide behind? Most players who do this are repeat offenders, too. They go "Oh, okay." when their mistake is pointed out, and then attempt it again while marching down the center of the next well-lit hallway, fifteen feet in front of the paladin in full plate.
Hey, wait, I do that all the time!
Oh. Wait. I play a ninja shadowdancer.
Nevermind!
-j
The problem comes in when THE ONLY WAY to describe things that don't exist in our reality are with numbers. How do you describe spell level in our reality? With that comes the necessary ability to describe caster level. Just because there is no way to describe that in our reality doesn't mean that characters living in a world where it is real can't.
There is no published material (that I'm aware of) that tells us how characters in world describe these things. That doesn't mean that they don't, it just means that when I describe it I MUST use game numbers.
Describing Spell Level in character? "Fireball is a 3rd rank mystery."
Describing Caster level in character? "In order for a wizard to be able to cast a 3rd rank mystery he would need to be an initiate of the 5th circle."really it is not that hard to dance around meta-gaming. And when you put forth the effort to do so it aids with the immersion into the setting of the others at the table.
So, replacing the word "level" with various synonyms somehow makes it less meta?
So, replacing the word "level" with various synonyms somehow makes it less meta?The problem comes in when THE ONLY WAY to describe things that don't exist in our reality are with numbers. How do you describe spell level in our reality? With that comes the necessary ability to describe caster level. Just because there is no way to describe that in our reality doesn't mean that characters living in a world where it is real can't.
There is no published material (that I'm aware of) that tells us how characters in world describe these things. That doesn't mean that they don't, it just means that when I describe it I MUST use game numbers.
Describing Spell Level in character? "Fireball is a 3rd rank mystery."
Describing Caster level in character? "In order for a wizard to be able to cast a 3rd rank mystery he would need to be an initiate of the 5th circle."really it is not that hard to dance around meta-gaming. And when you put forth the effort to do so it aids with the immersion into the setting of the others at the table.
In a word? yes.
Oddly enough that is often all a GM requires to let it slide.lets say you are a ranger...
Which is more immersive In character?
I ask "what level are you?"
I ask "how much experience as a tracker/woodsman do you have?"
and which is more immersive?
you answer "8th level"
You answer "As good as/better than/trained by (insert well known NPC name here)"
and which is more immersive?
you answer "8th level"
You answer "As good as/better than/trained by (insert well known NPC name here)"
The only way that answer would make me feel immersed in the game is I happen to be playing a character who is a newbie foreigner who has no idea who $randomNPC is.
The mechanics of the game are how the players understand the universe. Even if the characters themselves wouldn't understand their reality on the same terms, having the players share the characters' mechanical stats is a perfectly useful way of representing their characters communicating the same information in-universe without having to translate a stat into a vague, flowery description that the other party then has to try to translate back into useful information.
In fairness, one place where people disagree greatly is in how much of the world/rules characters know.Practically speaking it CAN'T all be reflected in knowledge skills since some characters just don't have the skill points to buy what their character "should" know. And what skill is "know in character what druid archetypes exist and what they look like?" anyway?
I personally handle the issue by giving significant circumstance bonuses based on character background. I'd likely give an oracle at least a bit of a bonus for knowing about oracles.
OH I agree somewhat, the fact that I even let him roll in the first place and didn't just say "You know nothing about black-blooded oracles" is because he was an oracle. However, seeing as he was a Kitsune oracle from Tian-Xia, I figured even as an oracle it was highly unlikely he knew anything about a curse that is rare outside the Darklands. I decided the difficulty would be 30 (the max) without knowing that he was one level away from being able to make it even with a 20.
As for what skill, it would for Druids I think be knowledge Nature (or maybe Religion, but I think more likely Nature for druids) For oracles, it's Religion. Arcane classes would be Arcana... Then if like say a player of a bard was like "Hey, can I roll knowledge arcana to know about bard archetypes" I'd probably let him too.
But, my problem wasn't so much that I didn't want him to know, as that he just assumed he knew it just because he was an oracle without even asking "Sounds like she's a Black-Blooded Oracle, would I recognize her as such?" when I hadn't even said that's what she was, all I said was she was cold to the touch and when she was cut black blood splashed on the cleric and she hissed in pain.
There is no phrase in the world more aggravating to me as a GM (or even as a player) when the rogue at the table says "I go into stealth" while in the middle of a wide-open, well-lit chamber. How difficult can it be to understand that hiding requires, well, something to hide behind? Most players who do this are repeat offenders, too. They go "Oh, okay." when their mistake is pointed out, and then attempt it again while marching down the center of the next well-lit hallway, fifteen feet in front of the paladin in full plate.
Well, Stealth can be used to do more than hiding, you know. Moving silently is also governed by the skill, then again, it's not the same thing as MMO/RPG "stealthing", and the clanktastic paladin's definitely going to cramp any rogue's style.
|
|
For the nitpicky issue: I'm not annoyed at the use of precise HP numbers, but you can have in-character conversation and precise triage both ways.
Me: "Please do, I'm wounded. Seriously wounded, but it's nothing life-threatening... Yet, anyway."
You: How much are you down?
Me: Down 22 out of 50.
It works the same way as saying that the ogre forgot which way to duck when he failed the save against your spell, and your reply of it incinerating his eyebrows for 35 heat damage. You get the numbers and the words together, succinctly enough not to slow things down too much. It also helps hedge your bets with other people who prefer one over the other.
Back to your regularly scheduled thread:
It annoys me when people presumptuously scoop up your dice, pausing only to ask while they're already rolling your dice in their sticky/clammy hands.
One guy did this two sessions in a row, so I bought him a d20 to prevent that from happening again. Wouldn't you know it, the next week, he forgot to bring it.
If they ask first, don't have hands covered in spilled soda or junk food dust, and won't pocket them later, I'm fine with lending some out.
"I don't have a figure or dice, can you get me some?" - 9th level playerThis is why I keep a Mini of Shame around.
It is a pig that is also a wizard.
Perchance, do you have a picture of said mini?