|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you pretty much have your own answer in the above.
Tell them
"have racked my brains and gone through my journal to try and find an instance when I have done anything that could be considered that, but found nothing.
All monsters my character has known things about have been due to successful knowledge rolls, and any location we know about is because a NPC told us about it.
But despite this I cannot help but feel concerned, because just because I don't recall it doesn't mean it hasn't happened."
Then, as unconfrontationally as possible, ask them for examples that you have missed.
Then go from there. Have an open and honest discussion
You seem to be on the side of Right. I'm very curious why your GM feels they have to insert encounters with X just because you mentioned there are X's in the vicinity. It would seem that either they are screwing up or you are misunderstanding what they said about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the GM side though.
Although you may not be acting out on your knowledge of the setting, you are imparting knowledge to the other players who may act upon it thus you could be encouraging others to metagame.
As a general rule any comment on the Setting, location or monsters you may make OOC is essentially a form of metagaming...although not as bad as if you act upon it...but metagaming nonetheless.
Although, I consider using OOC skills for something like diplomacy (i.e. Crircumstance bonus from RP) to be exactly as metagame as using OOC skills for knowledge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is always meta-gaming a little. It's impossible not to to some degree. It's only a problem if your table thinks it's a problem.
In this case, the GM thinks it's a problem.
Talk to them (and the rest of the group) about how to solve this problem.
Seriously, talking is always the answer.
It might be that they just want you to tone down your comments. It might be that the only one with a problem is the GM, and that to fix the problem all they have to do is NOT put in extra encounters (every encounter you don't have today is a unique encounter you can have tomorrow). It might be that all you have to do is limit your remarks to IN character (only make those remarks if you pass a knowledge check).
You'll never know without talking to your group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might be that metagaming isn't the problem, but that was the vocabulary that got used.
Having a player knowing more about the setting than the GM can be intimidating to the GM and frustrating for the other players, they may feel like you are interfering in the GM's story.
A good approach is to pretend you are in the GM's homebrew that just happens to be very similar to the setting you are familiar with. Nothing you know about the setting is true until the GM shares that information. They may get things about the setting wrong or not include major landmarks, you'll just have to assume that in the specific game you are playing things are different.
Not nearly enough details to know what the issue really is.
Scenario 1
Plot takes PCs to an area. Player knows some common features of the area. Player mentions it aloud. GM doesn't want to adhere to what the player knows, so spends effort changing things.
Result: Player gets unique encounter, is happy. GM presents unique encounter, is happy. GM worked harder than expected, is unhappy.
Scenario 2
Plot takes PCs to an area. Player knows some common features of the area. Player remains silent. GM doesn't want to adhere to what the player knows, so runs the encounters as written.
Result: Player gets an encounter they "know", is probably happy. GM presents known encounter thinking it is unique, is happy. GM didn't work harder than expected, is happy.
Really, scenario 2 is sort of awkward. The GM is only happy because he doesn't know that what he's presenting isn't what he wants to present. It's that weird "if my wife doesn't know I'm cheating on her, she won't mind" kind of mental Acrobatics that you can't take 10 on.
What it sounds like the GM wants is for the player to not know things, unless the issue is "spoilers" for other players.
Shrug.
EDIT: I'm getting so ninja'd today
I might be that metagaming isn't the problem, but that was the vocabulary that got used.
Having a player knowing more about the setting than the GM can be intimidating to the GM and frustrating for the other players, they may feel like you are interfering in the GM's story.
A good approach is to pretend you are in the GM's homebrew that just happens to be very similar to the setting you are familiar with. Nothing you know about the setting is true until the GM shares that information. They may get things about the setting wrong or not include major landmarks, you'll just have to assume that in the specific game you are playing things are different.
I'm assuming ^this is what's going on.
The GM feels compelled to keep up with your knowledge (which he shouldn't, but he does) in order to keep you (and your fellow players) immersed into the story, due to your ooc comments.
You're not actually metagaming (in terms of using ooc knowledge in-character, at least from what you've told us), but that doesn't stop those entirely ooc comments from emotionally (and intellectually emotionally) influencing the GM and the rest of the players.
You've not done anything wrong, exactly (at least from what you've said), but it could well be that you've inadvertently run afoul of the others' (or at least the GM's) sense of propriety and fun. It's important to note that this is unintentional on your part - you're just having a good time and sharing that with your friends. It's just that this can unintentionally burden those who are charged with responsibility of maintaining immersion for others, especially when they don't have information that a player does - it makes them feel responsible for putting that in to "keep up" (even if it's not actually necessary).
Anyway, talking is generally the right thing to do. Enjoy your friends and have fun gaming!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
metagaming is acting on outside knowledge. Having outside knowledge isn't metagaming.
|
...The primary concern is that the GM is likely considering what I say out of character as metagaming since my character would not have that knowledge and that they feel my 'fanboying' interesting things in the region is forcing their hand regarding encounters.
Is this actually a screw-up on my side? Am I actually doing something wrong here?Thanks in advance for any advice as to how to resolve this situation without hurting the GM's feelings or taking a whipping for something that wasn't my fault.
Since you're soliciting opinions, here's mine.
Yes, you're in the wrong. Not disastrously so, but you're stepping on toes. Just from what you posted, it sounds like its your fellow players you're annoying. I theorize that you may also be aggravating your GM, but that's just a guess.
Suggestion: allow your GM to provide exposition about the neat cultural oddities and bizarre monsters that relate to your PCs current travels. The GM may have had some social encounter planned to do exactly that, and if you go blabbing all the plot data in an OOC manner during table talk you cheated everyone involved, yourself included. By all means, do remember that if the GM has some detail "wrong", it may not be wrong at all. It could be a deliberate change he's made to the setting, or maybe even that wrongness was supposed to be a subtle clue relating to the current plot.
Further advice: Sometimes you just have to do the verbal equivalent of sitting on your hands. Sometimes people don't mind the kibitzer spouting OOC talk, but given you've heard complaints about your doing that it seems safe to assume they do mind. Perhaps your GM is willing to allow you to put your knowledge to "good use". Perhaps, if you communicate with him, you could become something of a designated "information spigot" about general info about the world, while possibly excluding some key tidbits he wants you to avoid mentioning. He can cue you in to start talking about whatever topic at the appointed time, and while you fill the other players in about what "everyone knows about X" the GM can review notes and prepare for upcoming encounters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is not forced to add something just because you say it exist there. If he doesn't you to have random banter going on about the game then he should just say so instead of making up excuses for it.
Saying vampires are in Ustalav is not metagaming, nor does it force the GM to suddenly use a vampire encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is not forced to add something just because you say it exist there.
That's an interesting take I hadn't seen at all. I'd imagined the GM was adding things <i>other</i> than what the OP was naming, to avoid things they knew about. Didn't see the angle that they're adding the creatures the OP mentions because "they belong here".
And this is why we have discussions.
The GM is not forced to add something just because you say it exist there. If he doesn't you to have random banter going on about the game then he should just say so instead of making up excuses for it.
Saying vampires are in Ustalav is not metagaming, nor does it force the GM to suddenly use a vampire encounter.
"Vampires in Ustalav?" *chuckle* "There are no vampires in Ustalav. Not for hundreds of years. You crazy young'uns and your wild tales." I believe the actual quote (from Carrion Crown game) was pertaining to Caliphas, but Wraithstrike's comment made me chuckle.
When I DM I prefer players to ask me what their characters would know about an area, region, or item rather than assume they know what they know. I try to do the same when I am a player. So in addition to the "talk to your GM" advice already soundly given, I would suggest in the future you just ask the GM what your character might know and take it from there. Good luck!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed with DM Livgin's post, when sitting at the actual table with the GM and other players. I'd add it's definitely helpful to consciously try not to phrase your 'fanboying' as suggestions rather than commentary. It's also helpful to ease a little on a stance against subtle metagaming if the other players and GM seem fine with it, as any strong opinion can kill the fun.
I'd also recommend talking to your GM outside of the game space to find the root cause. As mentioned by others, it might be your fellow players that are actually the ones complaining and the GM has chosen to confront you about it. Even if your actions were arguably 'Not metagaming / Not infinging on the game', this could just be a frustrating conflict with other players' preferences when role playing.
Contact the GM. Ask if they'd like to chat about it. See if they can better explain for you where the problem is. You already seem more than willing to not be someone that hinders the game for others, and I hope your GM can grow some thicker skin as well. It Is their campaign, they have arbitrary power, and it's meant to be enjoyed by all, not feel threatened by opinions. It's the same reason you resist throwing the rules as written in a GM's face, even if your character is designed around them. It's the same reason you can enjoy swinging on chandeliers, while firing hand crossbows or accurately throwing 4 knives in 6 seconds, *And* successfully punch an ogre in the balls/taint on your next turn. The more relaxed and less serious the experience, the funner it can be for all.
Edit: Agreed with Dosgamer as well. Simply asking your GM what the characters present know about their surroundings is a great way to both avoid this issue, and encourage the GM to give out more helpful detail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole idea of a GM having to make encounters conform to things the player knows about a region and talks about is pretty silly. No GM should feel they need to do that.
However, a player always chiming in about what they know can be offputting. It's stepping on the GM's toes a little bit in the sense that it's traditionally up to him to be the conduit between the players and the campaign. Also, he may have planned some alternative take on the area that you are pre-empting with our own assumptions.
As a GM, I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. I like the initiative and interest players show by pursuing knowledge outside of the game (and actually remembering it). But it can often come with assumptions or interpretations contrary to mine - and for the campaign, I generally want mine to be the ones the other players know and remember when I present them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely not metagaming if you're not acting on it. The only likely reason I can think of for the GM to be upset is the "spoilers" angle, and they're hoping to surprise the party with things. The "forcing the GM to add unplanned encounters just because you mentioned creatures that could possibly be in the area" bit sounds like someone lying to cover their ass, but I don't have all the details so I can't know if that's true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll agree with everyone else here and say you're not metagaming.
It's still not really good form to go talking about the setting OOC all the time, though, which is probably what's upsetting the other players. They want to discover things for themselves, through play, not here you talk about it to the GM, then have the GM suddenly have it be so (Which seems weird to me, assuming I'm not misunderstanding.)
I'd recommend spending the time you'd normally spend fanboying on the setting on in-character conversations and banter with the rest of the party. It keeps everyone in the mental space of the game, gets everyone involved, and gives the GM time to get everything in order for the next encounter.
I happen to be one of the more knowledgeable players at the table and often find myself making off hand remarks OOC about cool things in the area (Locations, monsters, etc) to the GM.
But recently they have advised me that this is 'Metagaming', and that I am talking about things my character should not know, and also by mentioning interesting creatures in the area I am forcing them to add encounters that they were not originally intending to have, thus bogging down the story/game.
I genuinely feel quite guilty because it never crossed my mind that saying things like "oh this country has some awesome J R Random creatures around, like blah and blah" was forcing the GM to add extra encounters and sacrifice story development.
But I also find myself thinking "it's up to the GM if they want to add a monster or not, just because I mention it shouldn't force their hand in anyway, should it?"
I can see talking about things your characters should not know as metagamey whether it's in character or not and ticking off a lot of DMs.
But I think it's very important to have a solid line about WHAT your character actually WOULD know. I love worlds with established Lore and I want my characters to know the local temples and taverns and where the shipyards are in the town. If there is a NPC who pretends to be the local bartender but is really a super spy for the king... Your character shouldn't know that regardless of what books you yourself have read.
There may be really cool things that were footnotes that the DM wants to spring on the players and to have someone shout out "Oh yeah, I remember this place.. they have that Sandpoint devil thing that hangs out at night..." will really ruin the atmosphere when an NPC tries to set the suspense for his next encounter.
On the other hand, if the Sandpoint devil has no part at all in his adventure and the whole party thinks it sounds interesting and want to hunt it down.... That's just derailed his story. If your character had never actually BEEN there, then he wouldn't have heard that legend. Just as some examples.
personally I think it's ok to know little things about your local village and region that a normal person should know.... but once you get three countries over, then the fact that this woods are haunted by undead and ettercaps aren't something they should know.
I also find myself EXTREMELY concerned about what I say OOC being considered Metagaming, particularly since I generally take a rather strong stance against it due to having played with some friends who metagamed rather heavily and ruined what was up to that point quite an enjoyable game.
I have always run under the impression that Metagaming is when your character acts with knowledge that they should not have, and I have racked my brains and gone through my journal to try and find an instance when I have done anything that could be considered that, but found nothing.
All monsters my character has known things about have been due to successful knowledge rolls, and any location we know about is because a NPC told us about it.
And this is how you avoid it. If the DM has given you this information based on the stats and dice that you rolled... Then It's not metagaming at all. If your assuming things without rolling the dice?? that's a different matter. I have a hard time picturing any DM getting upset because the player is engaged and remembering what he told them. I have to assume there is some more 'non-rolled' information coming around...
The primary concern is that the GM is likely considering what I say out of character as metagaming since my character would not have that knowledge and that they feel my 'fanboying' interesting things in the region is forcing their hand regarding encounters.
Is this actually a screw-up on my side? Am I actually doing something wrong here?
And now we're back to saying what your character would not have knowledge of...
One thing to remember is that the DM has his own story to tell. This may or may not match up with what you already know.
Our Forgotten Realms campaign got a bit cluttered a few times because the DM had read some great novels concerning a topic he wanted to play with. We were all fans of the worlds and we all loved our own corners of it and knew different things. He had read trilogy books C, D, and E and had built a campaign around it... while I had read Books A, B and F that stated different things... and another player had read A,B,D,F,H, and I and knew some stuff that neither of us did that scuttled some encounters.
As the DM was writing the story, only books C, D, and E were considered part of his canon and that's what the game was built on and regardless of what those other writers had written.... didn't apply here. But revealing the origins of the big bad from Book B or contradicting his workings of Moonblades or high magic would be bad form for the players at the table who had not read ANY of the novels and were just following the DM's story.
My suggestion is to keep OOC comments to a minimum, and only reveal things that the knowledge roles give you. We've had two very frustrating games in the past because nobody could make their knowledge roll about Skeletons or Vampires and didn't know that we should use blunt weapons or how to deal with Vamps. Despite all the players having fought them before in OTHER games with OTHER characters.
But yeah, if you mention that this part of varisia was in one of the novels and dealt with werewolves... and suddenly all the players are buying silver weapons?? that's pretty much the definition of Metagaming... Even if Silver weapons are pretty useful and everyone should have one.... getting it NOW was because of an OOC comment that the DM had hoped to spring on you.
without reading anybody's response to you:
I don't think your metagaming.
The DM should NOT feel forced to add something because you said it.
It may just not be the right way to play at this table.
What your doing would be A OK with me and my group, though this group may view it as somehow harming the game. If you don't feel shot down in any way just keep the fanboying inside.
If you feel this takes away from your gaming experience, then try to change their view OR step away from the table.
The GM is not forced to add something just because you say it exist there.That's an interesting take I hadn't seen at all. I'd imagined the GM was adding things <i>other</i> than what the OP was naming, to avoid things they knew about. Didn't see the angle that they're adding the creatures the OP mentions because "they belong here".
And this is why we have discussions.
Good point, but I also don't think it is forcing him to not have certain encounters either unless the OP is saying things like ___ has spell resistance, and DR 10/evil. It also has a paralyzing attack, and you should use freedom of movement if we see one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see this from the GM's point of view. There's a lot of pressure when running a campaign in an established setting to make it "real" by incorporating what published products (from gazeteers to players companions to novels to comics) say is there. But it's hard to search out and keep up with everything, and harder to remember all of that in the middle of a session. So by name-dropping stuff, you are (unintentionally) putting pressure on the GM to match your knowledge in order to give the PCs an "authentic" portrait of what the setting is like.
Let me give you an example. I'm running a campaign involving Sandpoint, and one of the PCs asked an NPC for directions to a blacksmith. As the GM, I honestly forgot there is an actual blacksmith, so I had the NPC give directions to a weapons/armor dealer. I know one of the players is quite familiar with Sandpoint and could have spoken up and said "actually, there is a well-known blacksmith in town named Das Korvut, he has an establishment called the Red Dog Smithy." But the player kept that to himself, thus saving me a lot of embarassment for my mistake and what could have been seen as undermining my competency to run the game. I'm very grateful for the discretion.
Are the semantics of the problem what OP should be wringing his hands over? Is the assignation of the correct title for what he is doing really what his GM and group are concerned with? I highly doubt it.
OP has been told he is disrupting the game. It doesn't matter a lick whether his disruption can be specifically defined as metagaming or not. I think OP is missing the point by focussing on the name of his disruption rather than owning the fact that he is causing a disruption.
Instead of the GM having said "Hey, can you please stop metagaming? I don't like it when you metagame." pretend the GM said "Hey, can you please stop that? I don't like it when you do that." Then move on to fixing "that" rather than fussing over inconsequential minutiae like what "that" should properly be called. Or not, as OP sees fit, as "that" isn't disruptive for every group. Either way, it's important to keep the actual issue at the forefront IMHO.