Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7463817" data-attributes="member: 6775031"><p>Both scenarios are fine, and neither requires meta-gaming. They just assume different things about how the world works. If the world doesn't actually work as described, and the character doesn't know those things, then the player would be meta-gaming by acting on that knowledge.</p><p>Hit Points are observable to the character. He knows how tough he is, and can approximate how hard he'll hit the ground, so he can make a reasonable guess as to how much it will hurt when he lands.</p><p></p><p>The description of HP damage varies between DMs. The fighter doesn't necessarily know that he won't break any bones during the fall, but he can be relatively certain that any injury he sustains will be non-crippling. Continuing to fight while injured is basic hero stuff. He can guess with reasonable certainty at what fraction of further attacks will be stopped by his armor, and he can guess how many of those successful attacks he will be able to endure before dropping.</p><p></p><p>If the DM describes ~20 damage from a giant's strike as being sufficient to shatter a boulder, and the superhero fighter knows that he can survive ~25 damage from falling, then he knows that he's more physically resilient than the boulder is. This is all based on in-game observations. If the world doesn't actually work that way, and the fighter isn't actually more durable than the boulder, then the DM needs to do a better job of describing things more consistently.</p><p>Harm boxes are observable to the character. He knows how tough he is, and can guess how hard he might hit the ground, but his guess is unreliable because he knows that divine intervention is a factor here that he can't account for. He's probably going to choose not to jump down, because he doesn't actually have faith that his god will protect him, even though he knows with absolute certainty that his god exists.</p><p></p><p>As he moves to engage the giants by ground, he estimates how hard their strikes are, and he compares that to what he knows about his armor. He knows with reasonable certainty that those strikes will pulverize his armor within the first few blows, but he doesn't know how long his skill will be able to save him after that point. He has a reasonable estimate of a worst-case scenario, where his skill is generally unable to cope with the assault, but even that estimate includes some benefit from his special mitigation technique. (That is to say, even if all of the attacks hit home, he <em>knows</em> that this special technique will work a few times during the combat.)</p><p></p><p>So the question is, where do you draw the line? Which of the following things are you <em>least</em> comfortable with allowing the character to know:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How badly he'll be hurt after a long fall.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That he can keep fighting effectively through any injury that isn't immediately fatal.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The he is physically tougher than stone, and how many hits he can actually take from a giant.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That his god exists, and actively intervenes with his life.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How many hits his armor can absorb before failing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That his special mitigation technique is perfectly reliable, but only a couple of times per encounter.</li> </ul><p></p><p>If any of those first three sound ridiculous to you, and you can't imagine a character actually having that knowledge, then it might seem like you're meta-gaming when you play through this scenario in D&D. If any of the second three sound ridiculous to you, and you can't imagine a character actually having that knowledge, then it might seem like you're meta-gaming when you play through this scenario in the other game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7463817, member: 6775031"] Both scenarios are fine, and neither requires meta-gaming. They just assume different things about how the world works. If the world doesn't actually work as described, and the character doesn't know those things, then the player would be meta-gaming by acting on that knowledge. Hit Points are observable to the character. He knows how tough he is, and can approximate how hard he'll hit the ground, so he can make a reasonable guess as to how much it will hurt when he lands. The description of HP damage varies between DMs. The fighter doesn't necessarily know that he won't break any bones during the fall, but he can be relatively certain that any injury he sustains will be non-crippling. Continuing to fight while injured is basic hero stuff. He can guess with reasonable certainty at what fraction of further attacks will be stopped by his armor, and he can guess how many of those successful attacks he will be able to endure before dropping. If the DM describes ~20 damage from a giant's strike as being sufficient to shatter a boulder, and the superhero fighter knows that he can survive ~25 damage from falling, then he knows that he's more physically resilient than the boulder is. This is all based on in-game observations. If the world doesn't actually work that way, and the fighter isn't actually more durable than the boulder, then the DM needs to do a better job of describing things more consistently. Harm boxes are observable to the character. He knows how tough he is, and can guess how hard he might hit the ground, but his guess is unreliable because he knows that divine intervention is a factor here that he can't account for. He's probably going to choose not to jump down, because he doesn't actually have faith that his god will protect him, even though he knows with absolute certainty that his god exists. As he moves to engage the giants by ground, he estimates how hard their strikes are, and he compares that to what he knows about his armor. He knows with reasonable certainty that those strikes will pulverize his armor within the first few blows, but he doesn't know how long his skill will be able to save him after that point. He has a reasonable estimate of a worst-case scenario, where his skill is generally unable to cope with the assault, but even that estimate includes some benefit from his special mitigation technique. (That is to say, even if all of the attacks hit home, he [I]knows[/I] that this special technique will work a few times during the combat.) So the question is, where do you draw the line? Which of the following things are you [I]least[/I] comfortable with allowing the character to know: [LIST] [*]How badly he'll be hurt after a long fall. [*]That he can keep fighting effectively through any injury that isn't immediately fatal. [*]The he is physically tougher than stone, and how many hits he can actually take from a giant. [*]That his god exists, and actively intervenes with his life. [*]How many hits his armor can absorb before failing. [*]That his special mitigation technique is perfectly reliable, but only a couple of times per encounter. [/LIST] If any of those first three sound ridiculous to you, and you can't imagine a character actually having that knowledge, then it might seem like you're meta-gaming when you play through this scenario in D&D. If any of the second three sound ridiculous to you, and you can't imagine a character actually having that knowledge, then it might seem like you're meta-gaming when you play through this scenario in the other game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
Top