Recall Knowledge checks encourage metagaming!

[thenobledrake]

Mathmuse wrote:

I never said, "because statistics." Instead I claimed that...

You said what you just quoted, I basically said 'what about less contrived scenarios?" and you, just like Malk_Content has done, effectively said those never happen...

which is pretty much just as valid as me saying scenarios like the one you're talking about never happen either.

So I'm just going to make one last statement on this facet of the discussion: a GM cannot be certain what a player is thinking in 100% of cases, so basing your determination of whether a player is playing in good faith or not on what you believe they are thinking - even when the statistics seem like they support your conclusion - is effectively saying "you're playing incorrectly because I said so."

[CrystalSeas]

thenobledrake wrote:

basing your determination of whether a player is playing in good faith or not on what you believe they are thinking - even when the statistics seem like they support your conclusion - is effectively saying "you're playing incorrectly because I said so."

Wait, what?

'even when statistics support your conclusion' is not "because I said so".

One is mathematics, one is GM fiat.
Both are allowed, but they aren't remotely alike.

[thenobledrake]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Wait, what?

'even when statistics support your conclusion' is not "because I said so".

One is mathematics, one is GM fiat.
Both are allowed, but they aren't remotely alike.

Let's say that, statistically speaking, the reason people disagree with me on a particular topic has been because they were factually incorrect.

If I then say that I'm sure someone is factually incorrect because they are disagreeing with me on that topic, it doesn't make me correct - I'm still just saying they are wrong because I said so if I'm not offering up any other evidence.

That's what I'm talking about with the case of a GM believing they know what a player is thinking and citing the statistics as their evidence that they couldn't be wrong this time.

Another example for illustrative purposes: a person wants to end a romantic relationship with someone else. Statistics show that it's very common that the cause is infidelity. So this person says "we're done because I know you cheated on me." It doesn't make them correct, it's just them saying what they have decided to believe happened without any actual evidence.

[CrystalSeas]

thenobledrake wrote:

Let's say that, statistically speaking,(examples)

That's not how probability and statistics work.

[thenobledrake]

CrystalSeas wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

Let's say that, statistically speaking,(examples)

That's not how probability and statistics work.

Which is exactly the point I was making.

[CrystalSeas]

thenobledrake wrote:

Which is exactly the point I was making.

Well, if that was the point you were trying to make, you failed to do so with logic or statistics.

Statistics and probability can be used to draw inferences about a character's behavior. You didn't supply an example where that was done.

[thenobledrake]

statistics don't equal mind-reading.

no matter what a character has done before, a player can have a genuine motive for a change in the way they are playing the character - demonstrating that their new actions don't line up with a statistically analysis of prior actions does not indicate their motive.

And like I already demonstrated, statistical analysis of why people have done the same thing before isn't guaranteed to provide an accurate explanation of why this person did the thing.

[CrystalSeas]

You seem to be claiming that a GM cannot use data to make a prediction about expected behavior.

You also seem to be claiming the only way a GM can make a prediction about the probability of a certain behavior is through mind reading.

Again, no mind reading needed. Only mathematics.

[beowulf99]

CrystalSeas wrote:

You seem to be claiming that a GM cannot use data to make a prediction about expected behavior.

You also seem to be claiming the only way a GM can make a prediction about the probability of a certain behavior is through mind reading.

Again, no mind reading needed. Only mathematics.

Do you record every action taken by every party member in a given campaign, say on a spreadsheet, so that you can cross reference every action a character has made against the one they wish to make at this very moment without stopping the game for half an hour?

If not, then how do you know that confirmation bias isn't muddling your analysis? What certainty can you give your prediction of a characters action?

Get that anime character, "I can predict what your going to do based on what you had for breakfast 3 days ago," wanna be Sherlock Holmes stuff out of here.

What you are describing is not statistical analysis, it's simple behavioral pattern analysis. Sure, people have habits and you can make accurate guesses of what a person will do based on them. But people can also act randomly. That is why any statistician worth their salt leaves a margin for error in any prediction based on the behavior of a single person. Your sample size is simply to small to come to a solid conclusion.

[CrystalSeas]

beowulf99 wrote:

Your sample size is simply to small to come to a solid conclusion.

Nope, I'm not sampling.

I'm not making a prediction about a single person's behavior based on population statistics. I'm taking 100% of the data about that specific player playing in my game(s). I'm making a prediction based on that player's individual statistics, just as you can in any sportball game.

There seems to be an argument going on that a GM cannot make a decision unless they are 100% certain. That if they are relying on a probability of less than 100, that they are "mind reading" or else somehow unfairly penalizing the character.

So any player can do anything because the GM can't know for sure why the player is doing it. That a GM cannot use data about previous behavior to predict the probability of current behavior.

I disagree. A GM doesn't need perfect knowledge or perfect mind-reading skills to make a decision about what a character can or cannot do. The GM can make a decision based on the probability of the behavior occurring, a probability derived from the previous behavior of that character that the GM has observed. They might even have data about the previous behavior of that player that they have observed that they could use in making the prediction and the decision based on that prediction.

[Rysky]

I keep a list of all the creatures my party has encountered and succesful knowledges checks made so they don't have to keep redoing them against something they've already encountered. Same thing with identified mmagic items.

"Get that anime character, "I can predict what your going to do based on what you had for breakfast 3 days ago," wanna be Sherlock Holmes stuff out of here."

Lol wut?

When it comes to metagaming it's usually obvious, and even if not, not all players are master liars and not all GMs are idiots, and those are distateful assummptions to make on both sides.

[beowulf99]

And that observation will be by it's very nature, fallible. Which is all that thenobledrake is trying to say. You are dismissing his argument out of hand, and seemingly doing so because you are so very good at reading your players.

And that could very well work for you and with your players. But how do you deal with outliers as presented by thenobledrake? Do you just shut them down? Or do you adjust your expectations when someone does something that you didn't account for in your prediction?

I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that what you are describing sounds SO boring. What is the point of playing an RPG if you as the GM are going to set what sounds like based on your description as a set of guide rails limiting what your players, "can or cannot do," based on what you believe their characters will do?

That doesn't sound like your players are playing their characters so much as you are directing them like puppets. If I as a player decide out of the blue to throw down my longsword for a mace, counter to every action I've made prior, would that be allowed? What is the line that you draw with your party?

[CrystalSeas]

beowulf99 wrote:

What is the line that you draw with your party?

"Is everyone enjoying the game?"

[cavernshark]

If a GM thinks a player is using meta-knowledge of a scenario, the GM should speak to the player about it. If a player makes a decision in game and is accused of using metaknowledge, then the player can / should explain their line of thinking. It might legitimately be innocuous and it might not.

In either event, we're talking about a breakdown of trust around the table that really deals more with norms than it does with any fixed convention or rules interpretations we may or may not establish here. No one in this thread is going to convince the others that their version of the "troll"-ey problem is the correct one.

[beowulf99]

cavernshark wrote:

"troll"-ey problem.

Oooh. I like that. You better go coin that before I get around to it. Sometime tomorrow probably.

[HumbleGamer]

cavernshark wrote:

If a GM thinks a player is using meta-knowledge of a scenario, the GM should speak to the player about it. If a player makes a decision in game and is accused of using metaknowledge, then the player can / should explain their line of thinking. It might legitimately be innocuous and it might not.

That is more or less the point of the thread.

Given a random encounter ( with a never seen troll in this specific case ), a character which refuses to draw a weapon and fight and instead light up a torch and swing with it smells fishy.

And even asking questions could change nothing if the answer is:

"I felt like to swing the giant with a common torch instead or my mithril +1 Striking warhammer because no reasons"

The point is that good faith sometimes has clearly nothing to do, given the context.

I can't even find a reason to discuss about similar situations. As a DM I would simply forbidd them ( and I say I would since never happened ).

[Rysky]

Quote:

Which is all that thenobledrake is trying to say.

No, they're saying it's immpossible to tell and that you shouldn't even try, because that would be mean.

Quote:

But how do you deal with outliers as presented by thenobledrake?

You mean the vacuum sealed hypotheticals with the barest framework that only exist in theorycrafting and aren't actual examples? Because an "example" playing out would be a world's different than the few sentence hypotheticals picthed thus far.

Quote:

I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that what you are describing sounds SO boring.

Because I don't cheat? Because I don't condone cheating.

Quote:

What is the point of playing an RPG if you as the GM are going to set what sounds like based on your description as a set of guide rails limiting what your players, "can or cannot do," based on what you believe their characters will do?

If you don't want to play by the rules then I wouldn't really have any interest in running for you. I'm not limiting anything. That doesn't mean you can ignore rules or metagame.

Quote:

That doesn't sound like your players are playing their characters so much as you are directing them like puppets.

No they play however they want and I react to it. They also don't make a habit of cheating.

Quote:

If I as a player decide out of the blue to throw down my longsword for a mace, counter to every action I've made prior, would that be allowed?

Can I post pone this conversation to go to a restaurant I don't like? Yes I can do this vague one sentence thing too. You're not describing anything actually happening, it's certainly not a gotcha or a piercing question.

[beowulf99]

Rysky wrote:

Quote:

Which is all that thenobledrake is trying to say.

No, they're saying it's immpossible to tell and that you shouldn't even try, because that would be mean.

Quote:

But how do you deal with outliers as presented by thenobledrake?

You mean the vacuum sealed hypotheticals with the barest framework that only exist in theorycrafting and aren't actual examples? Because an "example" playing out would be a world's different than the few sentence hypotheticals picthed thus far.

Quote:

I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that what you are describing sounds SO boring.

Because I don't cheat? Because I don't condone cheating.

Quote:

What is the point of playing an RPG if you as the GM are going to set what sounds like based on your description as a set of guide rails limiting what your players, "can or cannot do," based on what you believe their characters will do?

If you don't want to play by the rules then I wouldn't really have any interest in running for you. I'm not limiting anything. That doesn't mean you can ignore rules or metagame.

Quote:

That doesn't sound like your players are playing their characters so much as you are directing them like puppets.

No they play however they want and I react to it. They also don't make a habit of cheating.

Quote:

If I as a player decide out of the blue to throw down my longsword for a mace, counter to every action I've made prior, would that be allowed?

Can I post pone this conversation to go to a restaurant I don't like? Yes I can do this vague one sentence thing too. You're not describing anything actually happening, it's certainly not a gotcha or a piercing question.

@Rysky, What a series of pointless answers to questions not aimed at you. I don't know what I may have said to anger you, but it feels like this may be coming from a place of anger.

I will agree to disagree with you, since at the end of the day, our discussion is all pertaining to our personal habits as DM's dealing with an already nebulous topic like Meta Gaming. My stance is and has always been to not sweat the small stuff. To me, sweating a player because they use player knowledge in a way that doesn't derail the plot is pointless. All you would be doing is then enforcing the party to play the game in a way that they will now feel is sub optimal.

My line for meta gaming is obviously a lot higher than Rysky's or CrystalSeas. I don't try to frame out what the characters are able to do because largely I believe that makes their choices largely pointless. And that undermines the entire point of TTRPG's, player choice.

@Rysky, the whole point of these 3 threads was apparently to try to hash out what is and isn't meta gaming, all started by SuperBidi claiming that Recall Knowledge specifically leads players to meta game. In the 100's of posts made over these last what, 3 days, all we have determined is that some of us are okay with some meta gaming, and some of you are not. And that is fine.

Going all offensive about someones point of view on a topic of opinion feels pretty pointless, doesn't it? I should know.

[Rysky]

(it was posted after mmy post so I responded as if it was a response to me)

*shrugs*

I take a hard stance on cheating, and don't like when people try to downplay it or encourage it.

[beowulf99]

Rysky wrote:

(it was posted after mmy post so I responded as if it was a response to me)

*shrugs*

I take a hard stance on cheating, and don't like when people try to downplay it or encourage it.

That's fair and is your right as a GM. I don't really feel like cheating is important in a largely cooperative experience, so long as it doesn't take the plot in an unfun direction, or directly stop another player from having fun.

It's simply a difference of outlook. I don't think less of you just because I disagree with you.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

No, they're saying it's immpossible to tell and that you shouldn't even try, because that would be mean.

Hi, me here, speaking for myself: Beowulf has understood correctly what it is that I am saying.

You've characterized it into some windmill to tilt against, I believe this is because you think I'm saying "cheating is good" when what I've actually said is more like "you have no actual evidence that this scenario is the result of cheating." and "because the not-metagaming way of playing the game is also described by the definition of metagaming, that's not a useful definition"

[Rysky]

I've been responding to you pinballing through different defenses and random hypotheticals over three different threads, with all the moving goal posts and parody claims of what people are actually saying inbetween.

[CrystalSeas]

thenobledrake wrote:

what I've actually said is more like "you have no actual evidence that this scenario is the result of cheating.

A GM doesn't need criminal-jury-level evidence. They're not trying to prove that cheating happened.

A GM only needs sufficient data to make it probable that the person is trying to use out-of-character knowledge to guide their character's behavior. Or the "reasonable and articulable suspicion" level of information.

A GM doesn't have to be 100% sure that the player is metagaming. They don't have to read anyone's mind. They can make a decision based on probability, not certainty.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, if I suspect a player is acting on something I don't think their character would know, I'm just going to ask "how exactly does your character know that?" If they come back with a story about how their village fought off a troll, or whatever, then that's an additional thing we now know about the world or the character, and that's great.

[CrystalSeas]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, if I suspect a player is acting on something I don't think their character would know, I'm just going to ask "how exactly does your character know that?"

Yep, asking a question based on suspicion. That's a decision a GM often makes.

But the response here seems to be "You have no evidence I'm metagaming, so you can't do that." Or even, "You have no evidence, so you can't stop me."

[thenobledrake]

If the GM says "how exactly does your character know that?" and I respond with "Know what?" because they are asking me for information my character doesn't have, but also doesn't need... Rysky and a few others will stay say "yep, you're cheating."

GM: "How does your character know this is a troll and that you need to use fire?"
Player: "Uh... I thought that was an ogre, and my character's just using fire because it's an effective weapon."

...now the GM could follow that up with "oh, okay, my bad." but that's not a thing that ever occurs according to online discussions like this. Instead, once the GM is suspicious, that's just as good as having proof and the player's a cheating metagamer and anything they say, no matter how reasonable it may be, is "just trying to cover for your metagaming."

It's not "you have no evidence I'm metagaming so you can't do that" or even "you have no evidence so you can't stop me" it's "you have no more evidence that I'm cheating than you have that I'm not, so why are you so certain that I'm cheating?"

[Malk_Content]

But fire in pathfinder is NOT an effective weapon. Unless it's against one of the small subset of creatures it is super effective against. A torch does as much damage as a dagger, with less accuracy.

[Temperans]

You are right in the case of a torch, but not so much in the case of Alchemist Fire. Which is why context matters, just saying they went for the weakness is not enough when the weapon might in general be a good choice.

It's also why metagaming needs to be seen in a case by case basis.

[Malk_Content]

Temperans wrote:

You are right in the case of a torch, but not so much in the case of Alchemist Fire. Which is why context matters, just saying they went for the weakness is not enough when the weapon might in general be a good choice.

It's also why metagaming needs to be seen in a case by case basis.

Yes, which is what I think nearly everyone is suggesting. Even then if alchemists fire is a limited resource, you have a better weapon at hand and you've never shown any inclination that you consider it a tool worth using instead of your preferred mode of attack (as unless you are a bomb user, it's still likely worse in damage, accuracy, options, defense and action economy) I would consider it odd. Personally not stop the game and discuss it odd, but probably talk to player later about table expectations odds.

[Vidmaster7]

Approaching the subject like it's a trial and your innocent until proven guilty but it's not a trial. It's a game. If I always attack with my sword then the one time I fight a troll I immediately swap to fire without trying my sword which has always worked before.. that is awful curious.

[thenobledrake]

The whole "If I always this, but then this one time" thing is a specific case, not a general case. Yes, there are times in which it does seem suspicious - but that's not every case, not by a long shot.

It's entirely possible that a player knows they are facing a troll and is deliberately exploiting the weakness to fire.

It's equally possible that a player isn't aware that it's a troll they are facing and is using fire because that recently became an option or they were recently reminded of it being an option.

What I'm arguing against is the people claiming they are certain that if fire is used against a troll the player has cheated unless they proved their character knew it would work out well first.

[Vidmaster7]

I think your making an argument no one is really trying to make. I don't think people are saying that every time someone uses fire on a troll it is a meta move. I think your creating an argument that isn't there. I think they are saying that In the scenario where you usually kill things with your sword but the one time you face a troll you swap over to the fire option first thing that is suspicious I would say suspicious to the point where if they did it a few more times I would think they are meta gaming. If I am wrong about this assumption then someone let me know.

I got to say I think the confusion lies with how you have been phrasing things I didn't know that was what you were trying to say until that very last post.

[thenobledrake]

Because of this discussion happening with the same people, but spread through 3 different threads, some things can easily get lost.

However, when it comes to "I don't think people are saying that every time someone uses fire on a troll it is a meta move" it actually appears that yes, there are people saying that - so strongly in fact that someone actually said that even if I really do think I'm facing an ogre, it's still metagaming that I want to use fire on it. One poster even said that it doesn't matter what the monster actually is... which I thought was weird since I'm not sure how I could be deliberately gaining an advantage if I don't know what the monster is or there isn't actually an advantage to be gained, but that's beside the point that I was told in words that seemed very clear that my hypothetical use of fire with a reasonable explanation was definitely metagaming.

[Malk_Content]

Quote:

- so strongly in fact that someone actually said that even if I really do think I'm facing an ogre, it's still metagaming that I want to use fire on it.

No they were talking about the opposite scenario. Were they are facing an ogre but they thought it was a troll. The point there being that metagaming is about intent not outcome.

[Ravingdork]

SuperBidi wrote:

Reading the module or knowing the monsters from the monster manual is considered not acceptable.

Just wanted to say that this is not only acceptable, but also completely unenforceable (as they can simply use the internet, or walk into any bookstore).

If players couldn't read or learn the monster manuals, or look into the modules to see if they are worth runing, we wouldn't have half the GMs we do. Ergo, it must be acceptable on some level. I do agree that it is generally discouraged to look up and learn specific monsters right as you encounter them (or suspect you will encounter them soon) or to read a module that is, or will be, run FOR you.

I tell my players straight up: I can't stop them from ruining their own play experience, but that I will take steps to keep them from ruining anyone else's play experience.

[thenobledrake]

Malk_Content wrote:

No they were talking about the opposite scenario. Were they are facing an ogre but they thought it was a troll. The point there being that metagaming is about intent not outcome.

If you are right that they were talking about the opposite case, then they were not talking about the same thing that I was, even after I clarified... and that's a pretty weird thing too, right?

Me being like "You're saying that a player that has identified the monster their character faces as an ogre (and is incorrect) and decides "I'll throw fire at it" is cheating." and them being like "Yes" when what they really mean is "that's not what I said."

[thenobledrake]

Ravingdork wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Reading the module or knowing the monsters from the monster manual is considered not acceptable.

Just wanted to say that this is not only acceptable, but also completely unenforceable (as they can simply use the internet, or walk into any bookstore).

If players couldn't read or learn the monster manuals, or look into the modules to see if they are worth runing, we wouldn't have half the GMs we do. Ergo, it must be acceptable on some level. I do agree that it is generally discouraged to look up and learn specific monsters right as you encounter them (or suspect you will encounter them soon) or to read a module that is, or will be, run FOR you.

I tell my players straight up: I can't stop them from ruining their own play experience, but that I will take steps to keep them from ruining anyone else's play experience.

thanks for pointing out that someone made the "players can't have read monster books" claim, and bringing a reasonable response to it.

I personally hate that statement and the reasoning that it rests upon because it implies that each person that gets into the hobby can either be a player, or a GM, and if you choose GM you can't go back, and/or that a GM who sits down to play a character in another GM's campaign is inherently a worse player to include than someone else.

All because of the misplaced fear that the player that's read the monster book will have perfect recollection of the information therein, and also be able to correctly identify monsters by their description alone (which is demonstrably not the case, even among people that greatly enjoy reading monster books).

[Rysky]

You'll need to point out where it was clarified.

[CrystalSeas]

Ravingdork wrote:

I will take steps to keep them from ruining anyone else's play experience.

This.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

You'll need to point out where it was clarified.

It's in a thread you responded to, and didn't happen while you were typing up your post unless you stewed on one for more than an hour, so you presumably already should have seen it...

but here's a url anyways https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42v16&page=2?Metagame-Like-You-Like-To#77

And it's just the next few posts following that wherein it looks like it is being said that it's cheating no matter what a player thinks they are throwing fire at.

[Rysky]

thenobledrake wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Reading the module or knowing the monsters from the monster manual is considered not acceptable.

Just wanted to say that this is not only acceptable, but also completely unenforceable (as they can simply use the internet, or walk into any bookstore).

If players couldn't read or learn the monster manuals, or look into the modules to see if they are worth runing, we wouldn't have half the GMs we do. Ergo, it must be acceptable on some level. I do agree that it is generally discouraged to look up and learn specific monsters right as you encounter them (or suspect you will encounter them soon) or to read a module that is, or will be, run FOR you.

I tell my players straight up: I can't stop them from ruining their own play experience, but that I will take steps to keep them from ruining anyone else's play experience.

thanks for pointing out that someone made the "players can't have read monster books" claim, and bringing a reasonable response to it.

I personally hate that statement and the reasoning that it rests upon because it implies that each person that gets into the hobby can either be a player, or a GM, and if you choose GM you can't go back, and/or that a GM who sits down to play a character in another GM's campaign is inherently a worse player to include than someone else.

All because of the misplaced fear that the player that's read the monster book will have perfect recollection of the information therein, and also be able to correctly identify monsters by their description alone (which is demonstrably not the case, even among people that greatly enjoy reading monster books).

You can read the GM materials just fine and still be a player, it's also not that difficult to not act on the out of character information you glean from it.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

You can read the GM materials just fine and still be a player, it's also not that difficult to not act on the out of character information you glean from it.

Yes, I know... but for some reason, it seems it's hard for other people, even you who are making this claim right now, to believe that a player isn't acting on the knowledge from that book.

That's why you think it's so suspicious that a player use fire on a troll, even though the player might not realize it's a troll they are facing.

[Rysky]

thenobledrake wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You'll need to point out where it was clarified.

It's in a thread you responded to, and didn't happen while you were typing up your post unless you stewed on one for more than an hour, so you presumably already should have seen it...

but here's a url anyways https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42v16&page=2?Metagame-Like-You-Like-To#77

And it's just the next few posts following that wherein it looks like it is being said that it's cheating no matter what a player thinks they are throwing fire at.

… that's not you? Or is Beowulf99 your alt account?

[Rysky]

thenobledrake wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You can read the GM materials just fine and still be a player, it's also not that difficult to not act on the out of character information you glean from it.

Yes, I know... but for some reason, it seems it's hard for other people, even you who are making this claim right now, to believe that a player isn't acting on the knowledge from that book.

That's why you think it's so suspicious that a player use fire on a troll, even though the player might not realize it's a troll they are facing.

If they only use it on said troll then it is suspicious.

You're adhering to the even flimsier stance (currently) that it's impossible for players to metagame and that they switched to using fire on troll after not using against anything else purely out of whimsy.

If the actions you do "out of whimsy" and "to cheat" are a venn diagram that is a perfect circle that's not a valid defense.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

… that's not you? Or is Beowulf99 your alt account?

I just opened the url I posted, and it links straight to my post, so I don't know what you're talking about. And no, I have no alt accounts, pretty sure those are against the board rules besides me not having a use for them.

Rysky wrote:

If they only use it on said troll then it is suspicious.

Yeah, fine, if they manage to only use it on the troll - as in not only had they not used fire until the troll, but they still had the option to use it after that but didn't ever do so unless another troll came along - you've got a point.

However, you don't have the after this example information when you are deciding whether to call a player a cheater for this one single act happening right now. It could be "the only time", but it also could be "the first time."

Rysky wrote:

You're adhering to the even flimsier stance (currently) that it's impossible for players to metagame and that they switched to using fire on troll after not using against anything else purely out of whimsy.

False. My stance is not that it's impossible for a player to be deliberately attempting to exploit the weakness of a creature their character faces - my stance is that it's possible for a player to take the same actions for a different reason.

You only seem to see that a player is throwing fire at a troll - and not that the player could believe they are throwing fire at an ogre.

This isn't an argument of "all the time" vs. "never" - it's an argument of "all the time" vs. "not all the time"

[Rysky]

thenobledrake wrote:

Rysky wrote:

… that's not you? Or is Beowulf99 your alt account?

I just opened the url I posted, and it links straight to my post, so I don't know what you're talking about. And no, I have no alt accounts, pretty sure those are against the board rules besides me not having a use for them.

Ah okay, I got it to work after a few tries. For some reason every time I went there it would immediately jump up a few posts. Weird.

As for the "clarified", it wasn't since you brought it back up at your last paragraph and that's what everyone was responding to from then on.

Quote:

Rysky wrote:

If they only use it on said troll then it is suspicious.

Yeah, fine, if they manage to only use it on the troll - as in not only had they not used fire until the troll, but they still had the option to use it after that but didn't ever do so unless another troll came along - you've got a point.

However, you don't have the after this example information when you are deciding whether to call a player a cheater for this one single act happening right now. It could be "the only time", but it also could be "the first time."

Thank you for pointing out how flimsy this defense of yours is.

Quote:

Rysky wrote:

You're adhering to the even flimsier stance (currently) that it's impossible for players to metagame and that they switched to using fire on troll after not using against anything else purely out of whimsy.

False. My stance is not that it's impossible for a player to be deliberately attempting to exploit the weakness of a creature their character faces - my stance is that it's possible for a player to take the same actions for a different reason.

You only seem to see that a player is throwing fire at a troll - and not that the player could believe they are throwing fire at an ogre.

This isn't an argument of "all the time" vs. "never" - it's an argument of "all the time" vs. "not all the time"

You're arguments thus far have leaned heavily into "never".

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

You're arguments thus far have leaned heavily into "never".

That is factually inaccurate.

[beowulf99]

Rysky wrote:

… that's not you? Or is Beowulf99 your alt account?

Woah now. I am my own man thank you very much. :)

I just felt like perhaps thenobledrake has slightly more if a point than they are being given credit for. They maybe dont get that point across easily, and it is spread across like 80 posts over 3 threads, but his core argument, that you can't assume cheating of every action, isn't invalid.

The arguments that I have seen against that notion boil down to, "well I am good enough of a GM to tell/read the statistics/ etc... for that to be ridiculous," when in reality it is possible for an action to appear to be cheating when it is not.

The grown up answer to all of this that I missed if anyone even brought it up is, "well then have a talk with that player about their intentions, decide if that decision, whatever it was based on, is detrimental to the game, then either veto it or let it stand."

Instead the discussion, on both sides, has been largely worthless. Any fledgling gm coming to this rules discussion forum for advice is in for a longer and more pointless read than the middle 6 wheel of time books, cause this convo has gone no where. And any good information posted by anyone in here has been buried.

[thenobledrake]

here's the helpful info from me to any fledgling GM: If you think your player is doing something they aren't supposed to, have a polite chat with them about it. If after they explain their side of things you still don't believe they were playing the game in good faith - get that player away from your game entirely, even if you're friends (do other stuff when you hang out together), because playing with people you can't trust to play the game in good faith is going to keep causing problems.

[Vidmaster7]

Yeah all yall's wires are crossed. that's really then end of it. Looking at it form the outside you guys worded a few things vaguely and some things too strongly and confusion occurred and then you guys held on to the confusion with an iron grip. Also no I don't think Beowulf is the same guy. I notice a few differences in there opinion and syntax (Thanks!)

You may not have meant it to sound one way or the other but I can see where it could easily be read one way or the other.