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

[Ovinomancer]

I don't believe one has to go that far to see signs of GM sentimentality.
Everytime a GM has the opportunity to kill a PC and doesn't follow through is an example of GM sentimentality - the most obvious would be in combat.

I think that the cost to the GM for killing characters is a factor here, too. Loss of previous effort, requirement to incorporate replacement, etc. It's not just sentimentality for the players.

 

[Aldarc]

(just like the spirit of the RQ text was sincere.

We are sincere in our readings of the RQ text, though you seem to be insinuating here that we are not, or that we are misreading it. So perhaps you are confused that others would have different genuine readings from yours?

Nor am I. I'm responding to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s claim that it is cheating to (i) impute my knowledge of troll weaknesses to my PC, and (ii) to explain this, within the fiction, as stuff I learned from my dear old uncle.

All "cheating" means here is that Maxperson doesn't like it. But he presents it as if it is something more. And his argument for the "something more" rests on a general critique of metagaming that encompasses practices that he himself engages in.

No one in this thread, other than him, cares what his preferences are. But some do get frustrated with his presentation of essentially arbitrary preferences as hard-and-fast rules, especially when the formulation of those rules seems to have a strong element of special pleading if not outright hypocrisy.

This.

If my character knows it then it is not "out of game knowledge". Maxperson has no objection to my PC knowing what a crossbow is, or a spear trap, even though it is quite conceivable that some people in the gameworld are ignorant of such things, just as in the real world there are people ignorant of such things. But he objects to my PC knowing what a troll's vulnerability is.

No one in this thread is confused about what Maxperson's preference is. They are objecting to his attempt to present it as resting on anything but a convention that is largely if not completely arbitrary. And - consistent with the thread topic - they are also connecting this issue to questions of who gets to decide what a PC knows - player or GM?

And also this.

 

[Numidius]

Which is fine for your game. We all have different ways we play.

That's for sure. I can hardly imagine going to my players and starting a session saying: "Your family has been kidnapped" (table flips, turmoil ensues)

Following your line of thought, it would be perfectly fine if your hypothetical Gm says: "Your whole treasure has been stolen"

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don’t regard it as cheating. But regarding it as cheating is a thing, no matter how many crossbows you bring up. Obviously a crossbow is not secret info. Burning trolls by fire is more obviously a secret. This is painfully common. And it isn’t hard to understand. You guys are using clever arguments to obscure his point (a point I don’t even really agree with but think makes sense).

 

[Disappointment]

I think that the disagreement here is that we want our RPG's to be realistic to actual life. However, with only dice, pencils, and paper, our GM's can only do so much to mirror life's complexities. We simply can not make a pen and paper game intricate enough to match the everyday laws occurring in our world. Besides, who really wants RPG's to be realistic, we want dragons, fire-balls, laser swords, and interracial mating. We can't really do that in real life.

 

[Aldarc]

It doesn't matter what it talks about. The knowledge is gained here in the real world, making it real world knowledge.

My knowledge of trees comes from the real world, does this mean that my character can't recognize trees with it being metagaming? Or how about a sword? Or how about what it's like being a peasant?

I don’t regard it as cheating. But regarding it as cheating is a thing, no matter how many crossbows you bring up. Obviously a crossbow is not secret info. Burning trolls by fire is more obviously a secret. This is painfully common. And it isn’t hard to understand. You guys are using clever arguments to obscure his point (a point I don’t even really agree with but think makes sense).

Why do you keep using the word "obviously" as if your opinions were self-evident truths? It's not just here in this post but also in many beforehand.

 

[Numidius]

I think that the disagreement here is that we want our RPG's to be realistic to actual life. However, with only dice, pencils, and paper, our GM's can only do so much to mirror life's complexities. We simply can not make a pen and paper game intricate enough to match the everyday laws occurring in our world. Besides, who really wants RPG's to be realistic, we want dragons, fire-balls, laser swords, and interracial mating. We can't really do that in real life.

Personally I'd play or run even an hyper realistic game, content wise. But if it has to be mostly Gm-driven, Gm decides, I'd pass. And if it had too many rules and minutiae, especially if on a single arena of play (say: combat) I'd pass either.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My knowledge of trees comes from the real world, does this mean that my character can't recognize trees with it being metagaming? Or how about a sword? Or how about what it's like being a peasant?

Why do you keep using the word "obviously" as if your opinions were self-evident truths? It's not just here in this post but also in many beforehand.

Because it is pretty self evident to anyone who has been in the hobby for ten minutes

 

[Aldarc]

Because it is pretty self evident to anyone who has been in the hobby for ten minutes

Such presumptive condescension you have. But obviously others disagree with your assertion. And thus it is not self-evident as you assert here. But I suppose if you put the word 'obviously' in your opinion then you can present your singular reading as a fact while discounting the genuine readings that others have? You are obviously not being genuine, Bedrockgames.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Such presumptive condescension you have. But obviously others disagree with your assertion. And thus it is not self-evident as you assert here. But I suppose if you put the word 'obviously' in your opinion then you can present your singular reading as a fact while discounting the genuine readings that others have? You are obviously not being genuine, Bedrockgames.

I am being genuine, but there has been a style of argumentation here that doesn't strike me as genuine at all. And you are misunderstanding what I am saying about RQ. I am saying people are looking at it through a skewed lens, interpreting it through their own playstyle and not seeing what I think most people see when they read that. In terms of Maxperson's use of metagaming being the obviously common, mainstream use of the term. I base that on my experience in the real world. I've encountered so many people using the term metagming as he is. And I've encountered so many people who take his view. It has never been difficult for me or anyone else at the table to understand what these people mean. This thread is literally the first time I've seen a conflict over this. And it just seems part of the MO here with certain posters: go after the person's language, make it be an argument about the history of a word or concept in the hobby and don't really address the actual points they seem to be trying to make. Again, I want to point out, I don't agree with Maxperson. I am fine with the kind of meta gaming he doesn't like. but I totally understand what he is saying, and I understand the argument he is making. And I wouldn't try to persuade him to my viewpoint by undermining the language he is using.