|
It's also similar to I think Dms who expect players no matter their level. To suddenly not look for traps, detect evil or any other things a more experienced adventurer would do IMO. To take the example of Trolls and fire. A new adventurer may not use fire at first. Over time they will. One does not suddenly forgot their previous encounters with creatures IMO.
If the player asks to take 10 before he knows a dragon is there, then lucky him, he can take 10.
If he asks after he sees the dragon, then no, because at my table, recognition of enemies IS the beginning of combat. Note that it does not say anywhere in the rules what the definition of combat is, and I find this interpretation makes infinitely more intuitive sense for a couple dozen reasons than the interpretation of basing it on attacks. One of those reasons for choosing this way IS actually that taking 10 is supposed to be when you feel safe and unrushed, and after spotting a dragon is not that time.
But for sure, the beginning of combat is completely ambiguous and GM fiat, and that could certainly alter the consequences of taking 10 when and where.
Edit: and actually, "immediate danger" isn't "combat" anyway, really, so... pretty much in all cases after seeing a dragon in front of you you shouldn't take 10, even if you haven't rolled init yet. Because you're obviously in danger.
But if he fails the check he does not realize that he is in danger. :P
My group assumes a certain level of 'common knowledge' for adventurers, there are a few things we just have all characters know:
Undead are generally harmed by holy water (but who cares, your weapons do more damage anyway)
Trolls are usually affected by acid and fire
Red dragons are fire based
White dragons are ice based
Run away from golems
That pretty much sums it up. If they roll high enough on the appropriate knowledge check, I let them open the book to the appropriate page and just read the damn monster.
Especially as they level.
The idea of having them use random gear or telling them they can't use their characters how they want is beyond insulting.
If I tried that crap at my table, I would EXPECT someone to stand up and hand me their character sheet, or punch me.
I use a fairly high percentage of unique content, which is why people take the knowledge skills. Metagaming isn't hard to defeat.
An earlier poster talked about having several troll miniatures off to the side of the table... I do the same thing, and then go into my case and pull out a dozen orcs.
If people are gonna be idiots with metagaming, take advantage of their idiocy, what are the players going to do, complain that you tricked them?
If someone tried to tell me I wasn't allowed to use alchemists fire on something because I didn't have the knowledge check to back it up, I would force feed him his dice.
I'd be inclined to put certain creatures on DC 10 or lower Knowledge checks, just to represent general adventurer knowledge and mythologies.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've posted before about the guy I played with whose character's prized possession was his flaming sword. The first time the group encountered a troll, he said, "I drop my sword and draw my dagger."
Everyone at the table stared blankly at him.
I said, "You ALWAYS use your sword! You yell 'flame on!' every time we meet a monster! And now all of the sudden you don't want to?"
Player (proudly): "Well, my character wouldn't know that fire hurts trolls! I'm not metagaming!"
Me: (headdesk)
There definitely comes a point at which the efforts of the "metagame police" are self-defeating. In this instance, the poor player was so traumatized by previous DMs that he resorted to blatant metagaming in order to avoid the appearance of metagaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example of a metagaming conversation I had with a player (paraphrased):
It was 3.5. We were using miniatures, hex map instead of squares, and had 3-D dioramas for walls. This player had plastic meter sticks designed to work with the hex map scale to measure his spell ranges, and area effect templates he could hold over the battle map to determine exactly which spaces would be affected, and exactly who would or would not receive cover based on where an area effect was centered.
Me: "You know, technically, it is metagaming. You are taking advantage of your top-down view of the battle map. Your character is in the world; he can't count out hexes from above. You also can't see those guys behind that wall, even if you know they are there.You should just tell me where you intend center that fireball, then we figure out if your target space is in range and who is going to be affected."
He: "You know, technically, my character has a 24 Int, 15 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering), and four metamagic feats that alter spell range, area, and shape, and to extend spells into other dimensions. My counting out hexes is just a way to simulate someone who can process quadratic equations in his head faster than any of use can do it with a calculator and who has spatial skill we could barely comprehend."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example of a metagaming conversation I had with a player (paraphrased):
It was 3.5. We were using miniatures, hex map instead of squares, and had 3-D dioramas for walls. This player had plastic meter sticks designed to work with the hex map scale to measure his spell ranges, and area effect templates he could hold over the battle map to determine exactly which spaces would be affected, and exactly who would or would not receive cover based on where an area effect was centered.
Me: "You know, technically, it is metagaming. You are taking advantage of your top-down view of the battle map. Your character is in the world; he can't count out hexes from above. You also can't see those guys behind that wall, even if you know they are there.You should just tell me where you intend center that fireball, then we figure out if your target space is in range and who is going to be affected."
He: "You know, technically, my character has a 24 Int, 15 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering), and four metamagic feats that alter spell range, area, and shape, and to extend spells into other dimensions. My counting out hexes is just a way to simulate someone who can process quadratic equations in his head faster than any of use can do it with a calculator and who has spatial skill we could barely comprehend."
To be honest, possible douchiness aside, I kind of agree with your player. Any wizard experienced enough to be rocking a 24 Int is going to be damned good at his schtick - like uncannily good. If chucking fireballs is his thing, I'd expect him to have a remarkably good sense of where to aim them, even under duress.
Extremely well-trained people are capable of some shocking things. Ever watched Stephen Curry shoot a basketball? Read a Stephen Hawking book (ok, maybe it's just guys named Stephen)? I tend to let my players metagame a bit in their area of specialty, whatever that may be, as a way of simulating the sort of hyper-competence one would expect out of someone who had survived for any length of time living the life of an adventurer.
This can obviously be taken too far, but in isolation I don't see it as a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did side with the player. And let him continue to use his spell range and area templates rather than force him to occasionally catch a PC in a spell in the interest of avoiding the gods' eye view metagaming effect. The rest of the party also wanted to keep playing as though their characters were tactical veterans.
I don't force a barbarian player to rip a phonebook in half before he can make use of his character's 27 Str, so there is no reason to force someone whose character's Int exceeds his own to make idiotic decisions. A certain amount of "yes, he is able to see the math in every angle. And he has been slinging fireballs for 30 years" should be included in his character's high Int score.
Why is Metagaming a bad thing? It is still a game after all, A game that highly rewards system mastery and knowledge. Why unduly punish players for using their knowledge of the game to their advantage in specific areas?
I mean if it is too immersion breaking and or ruins you experience then why not just discuss that with the players? Tell them that it makes the experience less enjoyable for you. Or that you feel that by using their esoteric system knowledge they might be spoiling the experience for themselves.
No amount of processing equations in your head will let you know how far a wall is, at some point your eyeballs are a limiting factor no matter what. Or your ear balls for having perceived doppler effect or whatever. To get the sort of precision a ruler gives you beyond just basic getting by, a perception check is not unreasonable (and applies for the GM too of course)
Someone has obviously never tried to call in artillery or an air strike. You can get very accurate at judging distances with a little practice.
Right, and that is represented by your perception modifier going up over time, not your INT.
Someone has obviously never tried to call in artillery or an air strike. You can get very accurate at judging distances with a little practice.
I am highly intelligent, but nobody in their right mind will ever suggest that I have much in the way of common sense. I struggle to interpret non-obvious cues (some of my friends have taken to saying that an outright statement is the equivalent of a subtle hint to me). But damn me I can calculate trajectories like a BOSS. I don't have the manual dexterity to necessarily create those trajectories, but I can accurately judge multi-body intercepts with a glance (and I'm pretty darn good at catching things, even if I suck at throwing).
I can guarantee that in the real world, intelligence is a factor, even if the game rules don't agree.
|
Why is Metagaming a bad thing? It is still a game after all,
I feel like linking wikipedia page <_< Mainly because metagaming is by definition about using out of the game strategies instead of in game strategies, so I'm annoyed you are saying "Its still a game after all," as if metagaming was natural part of playing a game. Not saying its by definition a bad thing, but...
Like, there are forms of metagaming that I consider acceptable from game point of view, for example picking up fighting game character based on how effective character is agaisnt rest of roster or in trading card game tournaments making strategies to counter really popular decks and cards, however...
Well, other form of metagaming is in FPS game have spectators tell you location of other player :P So while other player is trying to get surprise on you, you have unfair advantage of external factors giving you information.
You can yourself decide whether you think players using their knowledge of module they read in advance while playing the module is "a bad thing".
That being said, being able to count squares in your range and decide where you are attacking should still be allowed :P Tactical combat is part of the game after all xD
Also, sorry for being offtopic, assuming this thread isn't completely derailed from discussing whether its okay to at spot decide "this requires you to roll 15 no matter how high your skill rank is" <_<;
|
|
Again having players roleplay every aspect of their character has to be used rarely. If the only reason to use a flaming sword over and over again. Is because the BBEG killed my entirely family and tried to do the same to the character but her or she survives. Then leaves it behind as a reminder to everyone who tries to disobey. I take up the sword to get revenge. That's all that is needed imo. I don't need to go into every fight and have to give a reason every time.It makes no sense that I have to validate using the same damn sword at every damn opportunity. Now if it's a unknown sword that has not even been identified as being magic then I can see the need to give a in game reason as to it's use.
There is a point where skills ranks and levels matter. A 15th level wizard played by a experienced player with the right feats and spells would know how to get around cover and obstacles. Not 100% of the time at least 90%. A baker who has made bread for at least 20+ years is suddenly not going to forget how to make it. Or if something goes wrong with the current recipe has years of knowledge and experience to try and salvage it.
That's my issue with having to give a reason for every action a character does. It makes the character come across as a complete idiot. I can understand if a character has low attribute scores. If one has average to higher it makes no sense. If I fought a troll and know fire burns it I'm going to keep using fire. Nor am I going to give a reason why after the first time. If I do it's simply to say "I fought a Troll before, fire is effective against it, my character and myself are not idiots" proceed to use fire whether the DM likes it or not. I don't play idiotic characters at a game table for no one
|
|
If one wants to control what happens at a game table at all times just say so. I may not like that kind of Dming style nor respect but if it works at that particular table than more power to you. It definitly is not the usual style of DMing. I can't simply play a character whose levels, skill ranks, experience and frankl common sense don't matter. I don't mind giving a roleplaying reason for doing something at the table. Once and awhile. Everytime no tanks. It just feels like the DM has to control everything with a iron fist. Makes me want to go "is it ok if my character simply falls died on the spot" followed by " no you need to give me a roleplaying reason why he does that or he can't".
My group has discussed this quite a bit and come to realize that some form of Clash of the Titans syndrome is inherent in a tabletop game that uses miniatures and a battle map. Players take the roles of gods, just like in the movie, who move figures of beings who act as their avatars or puppets in the game world. Through this controlled avatar (player character) a players works his or her will in the same world, but the view from the world above and beyond the table surface is always present. You want players to inhabit their characters and play as though they actually were them, then you should either get rid of the figures and go with full immersion, or make the players wear goggles with fiberoptic cables that tunnel their vision down to the table top level, even drilling holes through the figures' heads so the view shows whet the min would see. In that case, you might want to go with a game with facing, since PF characters can spin in place like tops and it will make you dizzy if you try to map your eyes to theirs. Players made to fully inhabit their miniatures should also roll to hit their target spaces, even if the rolls area fairly easy, to see if they center their area effect correctly.
With Clash of the Titans, players move solid mini statues, but they are not animating bodies of lead, pewter, or plastic or pretending that tiny toy constructs are their character. Those items are mere tokens representing the characters position in the game world and their relative distance form one another. It there are figures on a table, then the top-down view is there, it is simply the interface between you and the game.
You, the player control your character and endow him/her with basic wants and goals. but you don't imagine it it is the figure wanting;you are not playing the tiny figure, you are playing the full-sized virtual character tied to that figure.
While you are aware of your character, he or she is not aware of you., nor aware of the toy figure token, nor aware of the gridlines on the battle map, though all of there are real to you. This the basis of out of game meta knowledge; when characters can appeal to their uberselves for aid and resources. Now, maybe your character worships Zon-Kuthon, but you don't (I hope) so when your PC is asking the Midnight Lord for help he is really asking he DM.
|
|
If I do it's simply to say "I fought a Troll before, fire is effective against it, my character and myself are not idiots"Well this depends on one's backstory, which will already have been roughly established by now. If you are playing a cloistered cleric who spent all of his time in a monastery until two days ago when the party just recruited you there, then you haven't fought a troll before... If you're a colorful sailor who has traveled the world getting in spats here and there but never really hardcore adventuring till now, then sure maybe you have!
And ignorance is not the same thing as idiocy.
Agreed it goes depend on the backstory. Yet from what I'm reading in this thread. Despite the backstory some DMs still expect one to act like every encounter with a Troll is supposed to be like its the first time. No matter how often Trolls have been fought IMO. As for the Cloudteted Cleric chances are good he may have read or heard about Trolls being vulnerable to fire. Especially if the campaign world is full of them. I don't need to lock myself in a room and fill it up with carbon monoxide to know that it's a bad thing to do.
I get your point about ignorance try even that can only be role played so much before a player looks stupid. If a player keeps fighting trolls over and over yet refuses to use fire than its simy not realistic nor logical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the Cloudteted Cleric chances are good he may have read or heard about Trolls being vulnerable to fire. Especially if the campaign world is full of them.
And these chances can be calculated by rolling a d20 and adding the relevant knowledge skill.
We play very different games. Dragons aren't mindless brutes, conversations occur with virtually every encounter involving a dragon, in my games...
Sometimes they want to give the PCs the option to surrender.
I just said that I roll initiative and begin "combat" (I mean the technical term as in combat rules now apply) upon recognition of likely enemies.
You can still choose to talk and not attack during a "combat" round, and so can mr. dragon. You can do whatever you want. But it being combat helps sort out lots of weird issues like this. It also avoids "how do you handle sneak attacks during monologues?" quite neatly. Etc.
I mean, diplomacy is great, but you're still scared out of your wits and not feeling safe. Unless this dragon is your best friend from high school, he's a very likely potential enemy, so i classify you as in turn order.
this has been annoying me as i read, IT IS NOT COMBAT THE DENIES TAKING 10, you have to be in IMMEDIATE DANGER, if the dragon isn't even threatening you yet, you're not in immediate danger, like wise you're probably not distracted yet, especially if you're making a knowledge check of a dragon, since you're going to be very focused on that.
on the trolls, i literally as just a normal human would try to burn something if i killed it and it started regenerating, you need to just make it not exist at this point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No amount of processing equations in your head will let you know how far a wall is, at some point your eyeballs are a limiting factor no matter what. Or your ear balls for having perceived doppler effect or whatever. To get the sort of precision a ruler gives you beyond just basic getting by, a perception check is not unreasonable (and applies for the GM too of course)
This is untrue. There are many equations designed to estimate distances using nothing but your eyeballs. They are used by hunters, surveyors, and the military all the time. Usually getting an accurate reading takes time and a calculator, but I have seen real life folks with 'high Int scores' calculate and apply the math in seconds. It takes the type of person who can do trigonometry in their head to do it, but it can be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a GM that got it into his head that Goblins were awesome and gave them (and other enemies) +varies bonuses for circumstance modifiers that weren't available to players. "High ground" for jumping onto tables, "cover" for messing around with doors, "difficult terrain" after throwing improvised splash weapons, and +4 bonuses save bonuses "for casting the same spell at the same creature twice across two rounds".
None of which we could reproduce by doing the same things as the monsters.
I quit that game in rather a hurry. I get why you're frustrated.
I simply ask casters to place their spells on the grid. They choose their intersection, then we apply the template.
Sometimes they fry friends, but most often they don't.
If the GM did some random crap, well... yeah... no.
I simply ask casters to place their spells on the grid. They choose their intersection, then we apply the template.
Sometimes they fry friends, but most often they don't.
If the GM did some random crap, well... yeah... no.
Those constraints don't actually preclude a guy from counting squares when he places his spell, even if he doesn't have the template in had to work with. Seems fair enough to me, actually.
Also, you almost have to hand them the template if they have any sort of ability that lets them alter the shape of their AoE spells, so they can actually decide how to use that ability when they're casting their spell. Otherwise you've got a player stuck with a trap option they can't actually use.
They know the rules, they choose where the spell goes... THEN we put the template on the table and see if someone gets fried.
Most of the time they center it away from the group, just to be safe. It works.
That still leaves the issue of the template shaping abilities. Unless you intend on not letting them make use of those sorts of abilities. Which is really going to suck for the alchemist.I simply ask casters to place their spells on the grid. They choose their intersection, then we apply the template.
Sometimes they fry friends, but most often they don't.
If the GM did some random crap, well... yeah... no.
Those constraints don't actually preclude a guy from counting squares when he places his spell, even if he doesn't have the template in had to work with. Seems fair enough to me, actually.
Also, you almost have to hand them the template if they have any sort of ability that lets them alter the shape of their AoE spells, so they can actually decide how to use that ability when they're casting their spell. Otherwise you've got a player stuck with a trap option they can't actually use.
They know the rules, they choose where the spell goes... THEN we put the template on the table and see if someone gets fried.
Most of the time they center it away from the group, just to be safe. It works.
Not really, if a metamagic effect lets you exclude people... you declare which ones are excluded... it isn't rocket science.
Essentially, I let my players control their characters (durh), as long as it is fairly quick. If they take too long, I start saying "tick tock" for a bit...
They can actually miss turns.
If a caster pulls out a cut out template and uses it to place their spell on the board, that isn't metagaming...
That's gaming.
That still leaves the issue of the template shaping abilities. Unless you intend on not letting them make use of those sorts of abilities. Which is really going to suck for the alchemist.I simply ask casters to place their spells on the grid. They choose their intersection, then we apply the template.
Sometimes they fry friends, but most often they don't.
If the GM did some random crap, well... yeah... no.
Those constraints don't actually preclude a guy from counting squares when he places his spell, even if he doesn't have the template in had to work with. Seems fair enough to me, actually.
Also, you almost have to hand them the template if they have any sort of ability that lets them alter the shape of their AoE spells, so they can actually decide how to use that ability when they're casting their spell. Otherwise you've got a player stuck with a trap option they can't actually use.
They know the rules, they choose where the spell goes... THEN we put the template on the table and see if someone gets fried.
Most of the time they center it away from the group, just to be safe. It works.
Not really, if a metamagic effect lets you exclude people... you declare which ones are excluded... it isn't rocket science.
Essentially, I let my players control their characters (durh), as long as it is fairly quick. If they take too long, I start saying "tick tock" for a bit...
They can actually miss turns.
If a caster pulls out a cut out template and uses it to place their spell on the board, that isn't metagaming...
That's gaming.
Alchemists get to chose the SHAPE of their bombs later...
They could have a snake shape if they so chose to...
I play in a home game where the GM is very fair-minded (Most of the time). However there are times when the GM wants to up the challenge of the situation for I guess what they would call "story" or "drama". During these times the GM will adjust a DC to what he feels is a challenge for our characters. In practice this means taking account of our modifiers and setting the DC such that we can only succeed on a die roll of 15 or better.
What I find unfair about this is it completely ignores all of the choices and investments the player has made to improve that particular roll. For example if a player has Skill Focus, the bonus is disregarded because the number you have to roll on the die with or with out the feat is still 15. So while the feat helped get the player through many trials earlier in the game, when it comes to a time of "drama" say a "Boss Fight" the feat is not really beneficial at a time when the player probably needs it the most.
For the most part I've been quite about it and just been going along with it. What I would like to know is;
Does anyone else do this type of thing when they GM?
How common is this kind of thing in other/your home games?
If you witnessed this as a player what is the right thing to do?
PS: I'm not sure how many of the other players, if any, are bothered by this practice.
I don't do it, and I would not play under a GM that does it. I don't think it is common, because most GM's I have met don't do it.
I would explain to the GM how I think it is unfair to ignore the effort I put into my character, but if nothing changes, as I said before, I will leave the group.
If you don't let/want players work out the squares on their spells, do you allow people to count squares for movement? After all, you don't quite know how far you can run or that a square is a certain amount of movement, so how can the player exactly know where to go?
After a while, micromanaging player decisions in order to somehow defeat metagaming is a losing proposition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't Knowledge (Dungeoneering) let you determine the slope of something? That alone seems like it should be a valid a reason to be able to use Intelligence to determine distance instead of Wisdom or Perception.
I haven't seen any rules stating that you have to make rolls to choose where your spells get placed, so I don't implement rules forcing players to make rolls...
I would rather spend the extra time developing story and plot... other people like the combat aspect of the game more.
Crimeo, I get where you are coming from, and if your group needs that level of control to keep things fair, so be it.
Sometimes I like pure tabletop gaming, so if you are having fun with it, then you are doing it right.
Interesting side note, have you ever tried playing without using a grid, but instead eyeballing, declaring actions then using measuring tools to determine outcome? (like warhammer).
It is a bit different, and can be VERY fun, it introduces a little more stress and makes people think a bit more about their actions. Abilities that let you exclude targets become more useful, and people think more about spell placement...
I never understood how people play with rulers and such. It just seems like such a hassle when you could apply the grid.
I never understood how people play with rulers and such. It just seems like such a hassle when you could apply the grid.
Some people have huge warhammer tables already set up, complete with scenery and everything.
It can be REALLY fun. Especially when fireball is a 20ft radius, instead of a weird blocky pattern.
I've done it this way, it can be lots of fun.