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

[Bedrockgames]

No, I don't think you get it.

Be polite man

 

[dragoner]

Be polite man

I am noticing you're not getting what metagaming is. I am the soul of kindness, however, I feel you are trying to create a distraction.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am noticing you're not getting what metagaming is. I am the soul of kindness, however, I feel you are trying to create a distraction.

Well, you'd be wrong Dragoner. On both counts. I just didn't understand the point you were trying to make. Could you rephrase it?

 

[Maxperson]

So, we have Gm controlled Npcs that kidnap Gm contr. Npcs that force Pc* to search for a Gm cntr Npc** in order to invade a land of Gm cntr Npcs...

Man, if that's not railroad, I don't know what else could be.

It was absolutely not a railroad. A railroad is robbing the player of choice and forcing him down a narrow track. I had plenty of choices. I could save my family. I could save the people. I could have said screw it and gone to Waterdeep to become a sailor. I could have enlisted my companions to try and free my family, despite being told that would kill them. I could have retired and become a farmer. There was no railroad that I was forced down.

Not player knowledge of Real World, we're debating, but P K of Game World, and the quoted part from RQ doesn't say anything on the latter.

It does speak of Pc boundaries, so everithing is still open to debate where this limit is, but the provided example warns only on OBVIOUS real world knowledge.

One example doesn't overcome that it very clearly said the players first duty was to play within the limits of the CHARACTER, not the player. It's talking about all player knowledge, not just real world or game knowledge, but just in case, I will point this out. The Monster Manual is in the real world, and it and everything in it is real world knowledge. We use that real world knowledge to play the game and construct the game world, but if real world knowledge isn't allowed into the game, the player cannot use any knowledge gained from the Monster Manual.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps I misremembered, but I thought you compared the troll bit to a unique monster and the players demanding to know about that, and that seems like an extreme example.

I didn't compare them. I used your logic and applied it to a similar situation. If the DM is a jerk for ignoring group A's desire to avoid pretending not to know about weaknesses, then he is also a jerk if he ignores group B's desire not to be surprised by monster weaknesses and strengths. If the DM should allow group A to use player knowledge to kill trolls and such, then he should also give out all unknown strength and weakness information to group B.

I think whether or not they find out through "reasonable" means is largely DM dependent, no?

Unless the players all get some kind of lore roll for every creature they encounter and then their knowledge is based on the results of the roll.

It's more player dependent than DM dependent. They come up with the ideas on how to find out the knowledge. The DM just establishes the odds of success or failure as fairly as he can.

Is this what you do with your player backgrounds? The only example I recall that you've shared at this point is that one PC had a hermit friend who you might have show up one day. If you have others, it'd be cool if you share them. If I missed any, my apologies...it's a long thread and I haven't caught up on all new posts yet.

I only provided one example, but I also mentioned that I enjoy bringing in PC backgrounds, because it makes the players very happen when that sort of thing happens.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this is an extremely shallow reading of LotR. Aragorn's status as the rightful king is fundamental to his character from the moment he enters the story.

And yet virtually nobody knows, so his title is empty. He could have said he was King of the Deer for all that it mattered to the world at large. At least until he stepped into the role and revealed himself.

Assuming you use the standard D&D rules for starting money, aren't they exactly an example of this?

How so?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The bigger headache, no matter what the rules are, is if you're declaring you're a noble now that means you've in fact been a noble all along; which in turn means the question of your entourage (what it consists of, its general level of loyalty, its capabilities, and [most important to play!] whether any of it would have come with you into the field) should have been dealt with before you first entered play.

It strikes me that this entire concept, and all the baggage attendant onto it, which includes a lot of the anti-meta-gaming creed, as well as the whole "you're just a small guy without any special place in the world" is all basically just a shadow of Gygax (or again maybe I should be more fair to call it a shadow of Dave Arneson).

Particularly Blackmoor, from what I understand, was basically a pure 'skilled play' experience. The mechanics of the game were merely a tool, much like weather tables in Kriegspiel games. EVERYTHING was a challenge to the player, his knowledge and skill at play of the game. Any advantage imputed to a player (his PC) HAD to be earned because this was a competitive game! At the same time, skill must produce advantages, so there was always the nut of a problem there.

The irony is that the lesson "never give the players anything for free" was fully absorbed, but the actual context of skilled play dungeoneering was lost! There is no reason, from a standpoint of how a game should or must work for these things to exist anymore, unless you really do play very much like Dave did (and if so, that's great). But in terms of modern D&D play these restrictions are, well, highly restrictive! And they carry with them a sort of antagonistic play paradigm where a main part of the DM's job is to crack down on players, to make them toe some sort of line and not get out of hand. Its weird, and to be perfectly honest [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] a lot of your responses to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] kind of reek of it.

It isn't to put down any style of play, it just REALLY does seem very unexamined, like this is maybe how I would have thought if this was 1974 and D&D was just starting.

 

[Maxperson]

Where did this come from? I am assuming the GM - that is, I am assuming that it was not a player action declaration or an element of player-atuhored background that made the witch a focus of play.

The DM supplies the story hook and we decided to go with it.

I am also assuming that this came from the GM, in the sense that the leader, and the leader's connection to your family, were not things that resulted from player action declaration nor from an element of player-authored backgorund.

I authored my family. Putting my family into play allowed them to be the target of the world at large.

But am I right in taking it that the herbalist was a story element established by the GM, and made no particular reference to elements of PC backstory or PC goals?

The herbalist was an encounter. I have no idea what the encounter was originally intended to be as I cut it short by summoning the bad guys.

Also, did the fact that your "great idea" presumalby had rather sorry implications for the herbalist (who, as you present it, seems to be harmless at worst, generous at best) come into play here?

She was not happy with me, and went inside after it was over and refused to speak with us further.

This seems like a GM reveal/"gotcha". Was it pre-authored, or did the GM make this decision so as to negate your solution?

The girl was always the witch and not a "gotcha." We would have been given the clues to figure it out eventually, but we never got to that point due to my "great idea." It ended up being a surprise to us(and the DM who did not expect me to do that) when she was revealed to us in the way that it played out.

And what resulted from this? Were your family released? Did you homeland get destroyed?

They took the girl. We decided to try and free my family, then rescue the witch. The campaign ended early due to reasons not pertaining to the game, so we never did save our homeland. We got my family and were close to the witch when it ended.

The hard choice seems to be between two options both established by the GM - lose family or lose homeland. Is that correct?

No. The NPC game me those choices, but I had any number of options that I could have taken. I could have attacked them and died. I could have been overcome by conflicting emotions and just retreated from both options, leaving the land to fend for itself. I could have picked one of the two options given. I could have risked my family and got my companions to try and free them, even though I was told that my family would be killed if I did that, and that we were being watched. And more. We play in a sandbox game. No choices are forced on us.

Well, I did ask for examples of GM-driven RPGing, so in that sense there's no surprise that the example should be one that is heavily GM-driven!

Taking that context as given, the two things that I am curious about are the two moments of player choice: to summon the NPCs to attack an innocent herbalist and to stand with the NPCs at the end. I am very interested in the first in particular, as it seems to be harder choice - sacrificing an innocent person to save one's family.

My character's belief was that they would show up due to my "mistake," revealing my situation in a manner that would not get my family killed as I was obeying their instruction. He did not think they would kill the herbalist as she was not the witch. It was a risk for sure, because they might have decided to kill her anyway, but he was desperate to find a way out of the bind he was in.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It was absolutely not a railroad. A railroad is robbing the player of choice and forcing him down a narrow track. I had plenty of choices. I could save my family. I could save the people. I could have said screw it and gone to Waterdeep to become a sailor. I could have enlisted my companions to try and free my family, despite being told that would kill them. I could have retired and become a farmer. There was no railroad that I was forced down.



One example doesn't overcome that it very clearly said the players first duty was to play within the limits of the CHARACTER, not the player. It's talking about all player knowledge, not just real world or game knowledge, but just in case, I will point this out. The Monster Manual is in the real world, and it and everything in it is real world knowledge. We use that real world knowledge to play the game and construct the game world, but if real world knowledge isn't allowed into the game, the player cannot use any knowledge gained from the Monster Manual.

My character knows trolls' weakness is fire. His uncle told him. Prove me wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

The irony is that the lesson "never give the players anything for free" was fully absorbed, but the actual context of skilled play dungeoneering was lost! There is no reason, from a standpoint of how a game should or must work for these things to exist anymore, unless you really do play very much like Dave did (and if so, that's great). But in terms of modern D&D play these restrictions are, well, highly restrictive! And they carry with them a sort of antagonistic play paradigm where a main part of the DM's job is to crack down on players, to make them toe some sort of line and not get out of hand. Its weird, and to be perfectly honest [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] a lot of your responses to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] kind of reek of it.

I actually enjoy giving out things to the players, and do so every campaign. The reason nobility is different is because of just how powerful it is. The last noble in my game was a high ranking noblewoman as the player rolled really well as second time and managed to be born into a family with holdings and influence roughly equal to a Duke. When the party came back to her country, they needed help. Due to time constraints, she was only able to get several thousand gold and one powerful magic item. Had they had time to bring more of her family's influence into play, she could have gotten a lot more. If a player wants that kind of power and resources, he's going to have to roll it. I'm not going to allow that to be picked.