A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

Satyrn · Mar 24, 2019

AbdulAlhazred said:
You know, I'm tired of debating with people about what they don't like.

There a real easy solution to that. Take a nap, and come back in when you're rested.

(I bet y'all thought I was gonna say "then just don't argue," didn't y'all? But then where'd I find my entertainment if yall weren't arguing?)

pemerton · Mar 24, 2019

Maxperson said:
pemerton said:

It also proves that you definition of "metagaming as cheating" is far from universal.

Click to expand...

I never claimed it was universal. I said it was the most commonly used definition(the standard definition), and it is. There are others.

Maxperson, here's you endorsing the extract I quoted from the RQ 3rd ed rulebook:

Maxperson said:
Dude. The first paragraph says you can't use player knowledge and have your PC's know it. I bolded it so that you can see it. The players working together just means that they shouldn't be jerks about ideas on what to do. Not that they can bring knowledge of trolls into the game when the PC doesn't have said knowledge.

As for cooperation between players and DM, well that's also the way it always has been. The DM should consider his players, and the player should be able to discuss rules. And the rules you quoted say that the DM's decision is final and if sticks to his guns, the players lose the debate. He has full authority in this example.

There's nothing wrong with changing one's mind, but it makes the discussion easier to follow if one is clear about it.

Maxperson said:
I've said multiple times that they can create backstory during play, but that back story has to relate or make sense with prior backstory created at character creation.

I don't understand how you can dispute that this is GM-gating.

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 24, 2019

pemerton said:
The thinking being referred to is thinking by the players. The PCs can't have metagame thinking unless you're playing a game like Over the Edge, which has a self-referential dimension within the fiction.

I was going to post a reply to this but then saw that @iserith posted exactly what I would have done.

All I would add is that it's not true that a GM gets to adjudicate every declaration of "I recall such-and-such." For instance, if during a session of play the PCs met a shady broker at the merchant's house, and then the next session one of the players says (in character) "Remember that broker we met - let's track her down," the GM is not entitled to call for a INT check which, if it fails, prevents the player from making that suggestion.

Contrast: if the player recalls his/her PC being introduced to the broker, but has forgotten the broker's name, and says to the GM "I try and recall her name," then the GM is entitled to call for an INT check which - if it succeeds - will oblige the GM to tell the player the NPC's name.

I would point out that this also falls under Max et all's definition of meta-gaming. It should anyway! Logically and consistently, if you really play out the implications of what Max is saying, then players cannot call for any action whatsoever without ascertaining first what their PCs know. And to be really consistent, they should do so even in the negative case (where the player DOES remember).

Numidius · Mar 24, 2019

AbdulAlhazred said:
I would point out that this also falls under Max et all's definition of meta-gaming. It should anyway! Logically and consistently, if you really play out the implications of what Max is saying, then players cannot call for any action whatsoever without ascertaining first what their PCs know. And to be really consistent, they should do so even in the negative case (where the player DOES remember).

Which boils down to: Roll to Declare, then Roll to Action...

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 24, 2019

iserith said:
Here's the problem though: The player, and thus the character, might be wrong. The player might have gotten the weaknesses of demons mixed up with devils (oops!). Or the DM might have changed the stat block or added environmental complications that make exploiting the weaknesses risky. So the smart play is to try to recall what the character knows about fiends or deduce its weaknesses from available clues first to verify these assumptions before taking action. Or use a spell or class ability to do the same. Otherwise the player risks being wrong and all that may entail in context.

These skill proficiencies, spells, and class abilities are there for that reason, not to justify your playstyle. What's more, if you just stop adding your justification/DM blessing requirements to the game and change the odd stat block from time to time, you will achieve the same goal of reducing "metagaming" by just playing the game instead of relying on the social contract to change behavior. You'll even get rid of the "metagaming" you end up creating by the whole process of the DM and player establishing sufficient knowledge to take action.

These things really exist to allow players who do NOT know something to have their characters find it out, or when they can't really remember stuff they might have learned 20 years ago. They are there to make the 'gotchas' go away, or at least gate them behind a check.

Mostly they exist to support research. Particularly in classic D&D this was a big deal, skilled play meant you REALLY needed to know well ahead of time what you were going to face, so you could prep for it. Consumables in particular were a very important element. My wizard PC back in the day would do this. He'd cast spells or pay clerics to cast spells, to find out all he could about whatever big bad was on the agenda, and then 'scroll up' and get a slew of appropriate potions brewed. Why go in without every advantage? Even at a more tactical level its important to know when to pre-cast your buffs.

Numidius · Mar 24, 2019

Numidius said:
Which boils down to: Roll to Declare, then Roll to Action...

Sounds like Fortune in the Beginning...

Numidius · Mar 24, 2019

AbdulAlhazred said:
These things really exist to allow players who do NOT know something to have their characters find it out, or when they can't really remember stuff they might have learned 20 years ago. They are there to make the 'gotchas' go away, or at least gate them behind a check.

Mostly they exist to support research. Particularly in classic D&D this was a big deal, skilled play meant you REALLY needed to know well ahead of time what you were going to face, so you could prep for it. Consumables in particular were a very important element. My wizard PC back in the day would do this. He'd cast spells or pay clerics to cast spells, to find out all he could about whatever big bad was on the agenda, and then 'scroll up' and get a slew of appropriate potions brewed. Why go in without every advantage? Even at a more tactical level its important to know when to pre-cast your buffs.

Could they allow to have a glimpse at Dm-notes for that particular encounter, beyond common knowledge? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said so, if I got it correctly.

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 24, 2019

Numidius said:
Could they allow to have a glimpse at Dm-notes for that particular encounter, beyond common knowledge? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said so, if I got it correctly.

Well, of course, the ironic part is that classic D&D cannot REALLY handle divination or other "find out stuff" types of magic very well. It works OK to 'peek at the GM's notes' in terms of where the secret doors are, or something like that, but when it comes to deeper kinds of stuff these powers invariably include some sort of GM gate. The dead might not know, the power you commune with might trick you, etc. Even the simple stuff has the outs of lead, gorgons which can stone you when you view them with scrying magic, etc. Again, contrast this with systems which provide mechanics to adjudicate this sort of success and failure in a more objective way, and treat the player's due as sacrosanct and not "if it isn't inconvenient to the DM to tell you..."

Maxperson · Mar 25, 2019

pemerton said:
Maxperson, here's you endorsing the extract I quoted from the RQ 3rd ed rulebook:

You are conflating two different things. You are conflating my personal opinion that there is a standard definition of metagaming that is not the only definition of metagaming, and what I said about the RuneQuest rule, which is not my opinion on the definition of metagaming.

What I said about the RuneQuest was only to point out that it says in the rule YOU brought to the thread, is that you can't use player knowledge if the PC does not know about that knowledge. I also pointed out how the rule was wrong about cooperation being necessary.

There's nothing wrong with changing one's mind, but it makes the discussion easier to follow if one is clear about it.

You are too good with language and have too clear a memory for me to believe that you weren't aware of my position regarding metagaming definitions(as I've said it multiple times in this thread, or that the above conflation was accidental.

I don't understand how you can dispute that this is GM-gating.

Every rule is gating. You say that as if DM-Gating is a bad thing, when it isn't. It's just playing the game. Every rule in the book and every DM ruling is gating. You do it. I do it. Everyone else in the thread does it. Gating is part of game play.

I've never denied that gating happens, though I do deny "Mother May I" as you have to gate every last little move the players/PCs attempt in order to achieve that pejorative.

Maxperson · Mar 25, 2019

AbdulAlhazred said:
I would point out that this also falls under Max et all's definition of meta-gaming. It should anyway! Logically and consistently, if you really play out the implications of what Max is saying, then players cannot call for any action whatsoever without ascertaining first what their PCs know. And to be really consistent, they should do so even in the negative case (where the player DOES remember).

If the player remembers something that the PC encountered in the game or we established that the PC knows, the PC also remembers. If the player forgets something that the PC encountered in the game or we established that the PC knows, there will be a roll to remember most times, unless it's something so important to the story or PC that the PC wouldn't forget, then I will just tell the player.

The rolling that I'm talking about in this thread is where the knowledge of the PC is uncertain, but the player knows the answer. It's metagaming for the player to use the knowledge without knowing if the PC knows, or to do so if the PC doesn't know.

A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

Satyrn

First Post

pemerton

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Numidius

Adventurer

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Numidius

Adventurer

Numidius

Adventurer

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads