Playing the game versus white-room simulation. The first encounter in the Fall of Plaguestone (No spoilers)


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 128 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:

What do you call assuming "The cult leader was described as an elderly looking, tall and gaunt human, wearing plain robes and carrying a mace" wouldn't have melee capabilities?

Isn't that metagaming?

Assuming frail looking people without armor are bad in melee is a perfectly reasonable in character assumption.

So no.

It's not necessarily a correct assumption in a world with magic, but it's sure not metagaming.


The Raven Black wrote:
I prefer a game that does not push players too strongly in the open arms of metagaming.

Metagaming has nothing to do with the player pitching a fit and ragequitting because they couldn't one-shot a boss. Which, again, rarely happens in any of these games when the encounters are tuned correctly.

Usually it's considered a bad thing when one player instantly ends the GM's big boss fight with a single attack, even.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that’s an uncharitable way to characterise the reaction. They got frustrated when they realised flavour had no impact on mechanics and you couldn’t rely on one to inform on the other. It was a common complaint.

Regardless are you really dogging on someone who doesn’t even post here for a reaction they had 11 years ago to a now unsupported game?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ten10 wrote:

What do you call assuming "The cult leader was described as an elderly looking, tall and gaunt human, wearing plain robes and carrying a mace" wouldn't have melee capabilities?

Isn't that metagaming?

Assuming frail looking people without armor are bad in melee is a perfectly reasonable in character assumption.

So no.

It's not necessarily a correct assumption in a world with magic, but it's sure not metagaming.

so elderly looking people being great at magic is a perfectly reasonable assumption?

Based upon what?

What about Monks? What about magic items?


John Lynch 106 wrote:

I think that’s an uncharitable way to characterise the reaction. They got frustrated when they realised flavour had no impact on mechanics and you couldn’t rely on one to inform on the other. It was a common complaint.

Regardless are you really dogging on someone who doesn’t even post here for a reaction they had 11 years ago to a now unsupported game?

It wasn't 'flavor'

It truly baffles me that people are arguing that no armor = low AC in D&D.
Spells
magic items
abilities

any or all can make no armor = good or even great AC


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Elderly FRAIL people. I wouldn’t really expect a Str 16, Dex 16, con 14 monk to be described as frail (monks also didn’t exist in 4th ed until after PHB2).

Magic items were not incorporated into 4th Ed stat blocks. Regardless this was level 1. 8 years of established expectations would tell you not to expect too many from a foe you face at 1st level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

I think that’s an uncharitable way to characterise the reaction. They got frustrated when they realised flavour had no impact on mechanics and you couldn’t rely on one to inform on the other. It was a common complaint.

Regardless are you really dogging on someone who doesn’t even post here for a reaction they had 11 years ago to a now unsupported game?

It wasn't 'flavor'

It truly baffles me that people are arguing that no armor = low AC in D&D.
Spells
magic items
abilities

any or all can make no armor = good or even great AC

In that game an NPC described as having full plate could have the same AC as an NPC with robes. There was no spells or magic items used to justify it. It was “these are balanced numbers so this is what you face”.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
There was no spells or magic items used to justify it. It was “these are balanced numbers so this is what you face”.

You don't need specific spells to exist to still use magical flavor to represent certain mechanics.

I feel like there's a trend here where a lot of people who complain about flavor-mechanical disconnects also intentionally choose flavor that creates or exacerbates that disconnect in the first place.

You end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy where people deliberately frame something in the most ridiculous fashion possible, then complain about that same ridiculousness.

That said I'm not sure how we got from talking about practical PF2 gameplay experience to hypothetical DND 4e. Might be good to shift gears a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
swoosh wrote:

One shotting the boss with a sneak attack wouldn't have happened in PF1 or 3.5 either.

Your player thought he could get away with instakilling the boss and when it didn't work he threw a fit. Not sure that's really a condemnation of any system here.

Does kind of make your rogue player look like an ass though.

I prefer a game that does not push players too strongly in the open arms of metagaming.

Knowing that a 4ed boss caster has very strong martial abilities too, just by virtue of being a NPC boss, is metagaming.

What do you call assuming "The cult leader was described as an elderly looking, tall and gaunt human, wearing plain robes and carrying a mace" wouldn't have melee capabilities?

Isn't that metagaming?

I would say no. That is using information the character sees (he is elderly and wearing plain robes) to make a conclusion that the character in the world is capable of having.

The character in the game world would not be thinking to itself "this guy is a Boss and so has melee capabilities and extra action economy." That would be metagaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
There was no spells or magic items used to justify it. It was “these are balanced numbers so this is what you face”.
You don't need specific spells to exist to still use magical flavor to represent certain mechanics.

Sure. And that’s how it was justified at the time. Enough people didn’t buy into that reasoning to ensure we got the wonderful game that is Pathfinder. So don’t be surprised to see strong reactions if you see people trying to use the same logic for PF2e.

Totally happy to go back to talking about PF2e though :)

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
so elderly looking people being great at magic is a perfectly reasonable assumption?

Sure, if they're the leader of a cult or otherwise notable. Like all assumptions it will be false sometimes, but assuming someone you know to be dangerous who's unimpressive physically is impressive in some other way is a pretty fair assumption as assumptions go.

Ten10 wrote:
Based upon what?

Reality? In real life, and frankly in basically all game worlds, most frail looking old people are not great at physical combat.

Ten10 wrote:
What about Monks? What about magic items?

I did specify it wouldn't always be a correct assumption, it won't. I said it wasn't metagaming, which it isn't.

Metagaming is using OOC knowledge to inform IC behavior. The assumption that frail looking older people are bad at physical combat may be incorrect sometimes, but is perfectly reasonable in character.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
so elderly looking people being great at magic is a perfectly reasonable assumption?

Sure, if they're the leader of a cult or otherwise notable. Like all assumptions it will be false sometimes, but assuming someone you know to be dangerous who's unimpressive physically is impressive in some other way is a pretty fair assumption as assumptions go.

Ten10 wrote:
Based upon what?

Reality? In real life, and frankly in basically all game worlds, most frail looking old people are not great at physical combat.

Ten10 wrote:
What about Monks? What about magic items?

I did specify it wouldn't always be a correct assumption, it won't. I said it wasn't metagaming, which it isn't.

Metagaming is using OOC knowledge to inform IC behavior. The assumption that frail looking older people are bad at physical combat may be incorrect sometimes, but is perfectly reasonable in character.

It's based upon a D&D trope. Not reality in any way.

The rogue player meta-gamed an assumption and then quit the game because it was a faulty assumption.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
so elderly looking people being great at magic is a perfectly reasonable assumption?

Sure, if they're the leader of a cult or otherwise notable. Like all assumptions it will be false sometimes, but assuming someone you know to be dangerous who's unimpressive physically is impressive in some other way is a pretty fair assumption as assumptions go.

Ten10 wrote:
Based upon what?

Reality? In real life, and frankly in basically all game worlds, most frail looking old people are not great at physical combat.

Ten10 wrote:
What about Monks? What about magic items?

I did specify it wouldn't always be a correct assumption, it won't. I said it wasn't metagaming, which it isn't.

Metagaming is using OOC knowledge to inform IC behavior. The assumption that frail looking older people are bad at physical combat may be incorrect sometimes, but is perfectly reasonable in character.

It's based upon a D&D trope. Not reality in any way.

The rogue player meta-gamed an assumption and then quit the game because it was a faulty assumption.

When was the last time you saw a frail old man best a younger person in physical combat in real life (not a buff old man a frail old man)? That’s like saying assuming a character described as being buff and muscular to be good in melee is meta-gaming. Using information apparent to the character to make decisions is not meta-gaming but role-playing. (not that meta-gaming is some great crime in the first place.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tiene wrote:
When was the last time you saw a frail old man best a younger person in physical combat in real life (not a buff old man a frail old man)? That’s like saying assuming a character described as being buff and muscular to be good in melee is meta-gaming. Using information apparent to the character to make decisions is not meta-gaming but role-playing. (not that meta-gaming is some great crime in the first place.)

Elderly, tall, gaunt. Not frail.

Frail old man besting a young upstart is a classic trope in oodles of martial arts movies
Heck isn't Batman Beyond based upon that?

Isn't the trope of necromancer = gaunt type of person. Thinking of all the video games and miniatures and art work of 'necromancer' yeah most are gaunt.

He meta-gamed wizard = low hp = one alpha strike I get glory. That's a poor assumption based upon the playing of 3e and PF. Not reality in any way, shape or form.

I am liking PF2 so far it plays a lot more like 4e D&D. Which in my book is an awesome thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
.I am liking PF2 so far it plays a lot more like 4e D&D. Which in my book is an awesome thing.

And they tried telling me I was crazy for saying PF2 was like D&D 4e

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming that elderly, tall, and gaunt means physically weak remains a perfectly reasonable IC assumption (as it would be in real life). Something being a correct assumption and a reasonable assumption are very different things.

Calling this metagaming is just ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's nothing metagaming about thinking the gaunt old man might be frail.

It's a little dumb to assume he's defenseless though when he's the cult leader in a world brimming with magic, though.

Dumb and metagaming aren't the same thing. Dumb might even be good roleplaying in certain circumstances.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
.I am liking PF2 so far it plays a lot more like 4e D&D. Which in my book is an awesome thing.
And they tried telling me I was crazy for saying PF2 was like D&D 4e

Did anyone? I saw a few people get annoyed at the way you seem to use the term '4e' as some sort of dog-whistle, but I don't remember anyone calling you crazy.


Yes. Many times I’ve been told there are no meaningful similarities between PF2 and 4e.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Assuming that elderly, tall, and gaunt means physically weak remains a perfectly reasonable IC assumption (as it would be in real life). Something being a correct assumption and a reasonable assumption are very different things.

Calling this metagaming is just ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?

The player used game knowledge to do something 'in-character'. The issue is the rogue player used the wrong game system knowledge to do something.

swoosh wrote:
There's nothing metagaming about thinking the gaunt old man might be frail.

Because it's an excuse for failing.

If it had succeeded there would be no complaining, quitting or the like...until something doesn't go as planned.
It isn't the player's fault, it's faulty descriptions or bad DMing.

swoosh wrote:
It's a little dumb to assume he's defenseless though when he's the cult leader in a world brimming with magic, though.

Yes, I am still boggled by this. Especially since the rogue player supposedly had experience with both 3e and PF

swoosh wrote:
Dumb and metagaming aren't the same thing. Dumb might even be good roleplaying in certain circumstances.

No issue with someone playing dumb even if they do know, that is roleplaying.

Complaining and rage quitting because you made an assumption based purely upon 'appearances'... in D&D. Think about that, based purely upon appearance... in D&D

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
.I am liking PF2 so far it plays a lot more like 4e D&D. Which in my book is an awesome thing.
And they tried telling me I was crazy for saying PF2 was like D&D 4e

I have no issues with PF2 being like 4e. It's why I am even playing the system.


Ten10 wrote:
]I have no issues with PF2 being like 4e. It's why I am even playing the system.

I’m happy for you :)

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:

Why is it ridiculous?

The player used game knowledge to do something 'in-character'. The issue is the rogue player used the wrong game system knowledge to do something.

It's ridiculous because it's a perfectly reasonable IC assumption to make. It's a wrong assumption in this case, and I can definitely see the argument that it's a generally bad or stupid assumption...but it's not metagaming.

For it to be metagaming, it would have to be an assumption that they could not make in-character. This is not that situation.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ten10 wrote:

Why is it ridiculous?

The player used game knowledge to do something 'in-character'. The issue is the rogue player used the wrong game system knowledge to do something.

It's ridiculous because it's a perfectly reasonable IC assumption to make. It's a wrong assumption in this case, and I can definitely see the argument that it's a generally bad or stupid assumption...but it's not metagaming.

That IC assumption is based purely upon OOC game system knowledge. It didn't work(not that it would have in 3e/PF either) because it was knowledge based on a different game system.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
For it to be metagaming, it would have to be an assumption that they could not make in-character. This is not that situation.

This is the strangest definition of meta-gaming I've seen in a long while.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
That IC assumption is based purely upon OOC game system knowledge. It didn't work(not that it would have in 3e/PF either) because it was knowledge based on a different game system.

And you know this how? Can you read minds? Clearly, previous games had supported this assumption, but I'll bet you that the first time he did it, it was purely from a 'real world logic' perspective. The games the played followed this real world logic...right up until it didn't.

Ten10 wrote:
This is the strangest definition of meta-gaming I've seen in a long while.

That's literally the definition of metagaming. Using cold or water on something made of fire (or fire on something made of ice) isn't suddenly metagaming because you've read a Bestiary, it's basic logic.

This is exactly the same kind of thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could the meta gaming discussion maybe go to another thread? I keep getting excited to see what DMW has to say about the main topic only to be disappointed he is talking about meta gaming.

(No offence intended DMW)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
That IC assumption is based purely upon OOC game system knowledge. It didn't work(not that it would have in 3e/PF either) because it was knowledge based on a different game system.
And you know this how? Can you read minds? Clearly, previous games had supported this assumption, but I'll bet you that the first time he did it, it was purely from a 'real world logic' perspective. The games the played followed this real world logic...right up until it didn't.

I know from the reaction to it not working out the way they wanted it to.

Here's a thought for you to ponder. If 3e/PF had wizardly types having a d12 for hp and using melee weapons like Gandalf does.
Do you think the rogue would have done the same tactic?

Would he have done the same thing if it was a tall, physically fit man in scale armor? Cuz you know being stabbed in the back still kills purely from a 'real world logic' perspective.
Of course not we all know that.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
This is the strangest definition of meta-gaming I've seen in a long while.

That's literally the definition of metagaming. Using cold or water on something made of fire (or fire on something made of ice) isn't suddenly metagaming because you've read a Bestiary, it's basic logic.

This is exactly the same kind of thing.

I always thought metagaming was using player knowledge instead of character knowledge.

You know something along the lines of:
DM: Before you stands a large creature, it's tall gaunt and overly long arms almost dragging on the ground, it's greenish brown skin is mottled, covered in warts and sparse hair. It has long canine teeth yellowed with age. It takes a look at you and charges.

Player: "Okay I look away from it trying to keep it in my peripheral vision. I grab my waterskin and pour the water onto the ground so I can coat my weapons in mud."

DM: "And you have heard of this creature from where?"

Player: "Common knowledge."

DM: "A Snarfer Troll is common knowledge?"

Player: "Ever heard of bards?"

You know personally I don't really care about the metagaming. It's the rage quitting that annoys me as a gamer


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How is that example at all similar to "Let me sneak attack the weak looking wizard." No same person would expect that a frail looking wizard will hit like a Fighter, just like no one would expect a meat-head looking Fighter would suddenly call forth meteors.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Could the meta gaming discussion maybe go to another thread? I keep getting excited to see what DMW has to say about the main topic only to be disappointed he is talking about meta gaming.

(No offence intended DMW)

This is fair, and thus this'll be my last post on this issue in this thread.

@Ten10:

If you can't tell the difference between a player cheating by 'just knowing' obscure stuff and saying it's common knowledge and things that actually are common knowledge in real life (ie: it's easier to stab people who don't wear armor, fire melts ice, etc.), I don't know what to say.

You're wrong about this being metagaming and just about everyone except you seems to agree that you're wrong, so maybe you should examine your own definitions for how they're out of step with those of everyone else. You say you don't even care about the metagaming, but I've never even argued with the bit you say you do care about, so I'm confused why you've even continued this argument (I've continued it because I really do care about metagaming and properly defining it, separate from other problematic behaviors).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
If you can't tell the difference between a player cheating by 'just knowing' obscure stuff and saying it's common knowledge and things that actually are common knowledge in real life (ie: it's easier to stab people who don't wear armor, fire melts ice, etc.), I don't know what to say.

And the problem with your spurious claims is it's common knowledge that a knife to the back is just as deadly to an armored person as an unarmored person. The only difference between them in RPG-land is the artificial difficulty in completely one over the other.

Hiding behind your in real life claims is disingenuous, but you know that already.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
You're wrong about this being metagaming and just about everyone except you seems to agree that you're wrong, so maybe you should examine your own definitions for how they're out of step with those of everyone else. You say you don't even care about the metagaming, but I've never even argued with the bit you say you do care about, so I'm confused why you've even continued this argument (I've continued it because I really do care about metagaming and properly defining it, separate from other problematic behaviors).

See this for reference

Here's a thought for you to ponder. If 3e/PF had wizardly types having a d12 for hp and using melee weapons like Gandalf does.
Do you think the rogue would have done the same tactic?

Would he have done the same thing if it was a tall, physically fit man in scale armor? Cuz you know being stabbed in the back still kills purely from a 'real world logic' perspective.
Of course not we all know that.

ignoring that is way more telling about your thoughts on metagaming

You don't care about metagaming you care about a style of play.

101 to 128 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Playing the game versus white-room simulation. The first encounter in the Fall of Plaguestone (No spoilers) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.