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

[hawkeyefan]

Hitpoints aren't metagame at all, they are abstract. abstractions are required for the game to function, or you'd spend vastly more time simulating a single sword swing than most sessions last. Further, actually playing the game can't be metagaming so thinking about or using hitpoints is just playing the game.

RPGs have developed this weird idea that metagaming is anything outside the fictional mental state of the character. This is useless as a concept because it presupposes a one-true-way of playing and also moves actually playing the game into the metagame. Metagaming, by definition, is thinking outside the game, not playing it or using abstract mechanics. Metagaming is making sure the party covers all roles, or that someone plays a cleric, or how modern chemistry works. Not hitpoints.

I disagreed when [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] said something similar upthread, but things had moved past that by the time I could respond.

I realize the distinction you're making, and it's not a perfect example, perhaps, but to me, I would find a DM who said "wait, why is your fighter willing to take the hit from that gnoll....he doesn't know he has 76 HP and a tmost the gnoll can do 36" to be pretty much on par with the DM saying "Wait, how does your fighter know that trolls are vulnerable to fire?"

I just....I don't know.....why are so many DMs determined to get in the way of the game moving forward?

 

[Numidius]

This Uncle Elmo should have kept his mouth shut!

Well I imagine children singing unclaimed tunes about trolls & fire all over the game world and grannies telling the same tale to them before sleeping

 

[Numidius]

I just....I don't know.....why are so many DMs determined to get in the way of the game moving forward?

This is the right question. Everything is in there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I realize the distinction you're making, and it's not a perfect example, perhaps, but to me, I would find a DM who said "wait, why is your fighter willing to take the hit from that gnoll....he doesn't know he has 76 HP and a tmost the gnoll can do 36" to be pretty much on par with the DM saying "Wait, how does your fighter know that trolls are vulnerable to fire?"

Well... because "hits" and "hitpoints" are abstract respresentations. Taking the gnoll's hit doesn't imply taking a spear to the gut, it make mean a glancing blow, a scratch, a last second dodge, a block with more effort than expected, etc, etc. Whether you can defend against the gnoll's attack is something a fighter should know, roughly speaking. I think this is a case where not thinking broadly enough about the fictional outcomes is causing issues.

I just....I don't know.....why are so many DMs determined to get in the way of the game moving forward?

If you ask me, based on my oersonal past thinking, it's because players aren't supposed to know what's in the GM's notes. Thise secret notes are where the fun is, or so I believed, and not knowing made the game better, or so I believed. Then, one year, I realized that I can tell my players absolutely everything and they'll still find ways to screw it up most entertainingly. So, I now pretty much tell my players what's what with statblocks. I play online these days, and so post the entire rules text from statblicks when an ability is used and provide resistances and immunities pretty freely. The challenge isn't guessing the monster abilities, it's being pressed anyway even though you know.

Between being open about abilities and using the no death unless the players agrees rule, I've really been able to up the danger factors. The players take more risks, and I don't pull punches. Both sides are more free to engage the fiction without having to worry about who knows what.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would prefer a game where such a restriction was not in place. Could I handle such a restriction? Yes. But do I think it's a meaningful restriction based on sound logic? Not really.

I play with the same group of friends I've always played with (for the most part), so we've periodically addressed concerns like these and decided what's best for the group. So I wouldn't have to worry about this in my home game; we'd talk it out, and work toward something everyone could agree with. But if I was joining a public game, or an online game, where there are plenty of potential games to join.....I'd probably pass a game with such restrictions up in favor of one that didn't have them.

Regarding trolls and fire....to me, once players know, the cat is pretty much out of the bag. I don't see the advantage of enforcing this ruling....I don't see what it adds to the game. Unless everyone likes the idea of pretending to discover a secret they already know.

And all that is fine. That is a clear preference. I like my investigations to put player skill agains the mystery. And for ages I just figured this was naturally superior to other approaches. But I played with enough people who I saw genuinely had more fun if their character was a simulation of Sherlock Holmes, to understand there are just different preferences when it comes to this. By the same token, there are people who, no matter how much of the mystery they have figured out because of out of character knowledge, will strive to not allow that knowledge help their character solve it (and its because they enjoy keeping the line between character and out of character knowledge).

I just feel people are unnecessarily dismantling Maxperson's preference, when it is a perfectly grokable and valid way to play the game. If you don't like it, that is fine. I don't particularly like it either. I just think people are acting like they are master game analysts, yet all their analysis is shaped by bias. And people are taking such steps as pulling the words out from under posters, or declaring obviously valid preferences to be nonsensical. It is as weird as the foundation this thread is built upon (a strange argument about the impossibility of simulating reality).

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is the right question. Everything is in there.

This mentality reaches a counter productive point where it places anything the GM might do under suspicion. GMing is not easy work. It takes more effort and time than the players have to invest. So when I play, I am generally very open minded about what the GM wants, and wants to do. And I just don't get this mindset. Unless the GM is genuinely bad. But I feel like people are predisposed toward criticism here, they are going to label perfectly good GMs terrible.

 

[Numidius]

This mentality reaches a counter productive point where it places anything the GM might do under suspicion. GMing is not easy work. It takes more effort and time than the players have to invest. So when I play, I am generally very open minded about what the GM wants, and wants to do. And I just don't get this mindset. Unless the GM is genuinely bad. But I feel like people are predisposed toward criticism here, they are going to label perfectly good GMs terrible.

I know, cause I'm a Gm too. That's why I see the matter from both sides of the barricade. And since mainstream games are so Gm-centric, I think it's from Gm's role that it all starts and must be discussed.
A deeply rooted habit, extended also to players, is still in place, and that prevents me from running or playing a game in a satisfying manner.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well... because "hits" and "hitpoints" are abstract respresentations. Taking the gnoll's hit doesn't imply taking a spear to the gut, it make mean a glancing blow, a scratch, a last second dodge, a block with more effort than expected, etc, etc. Whether you can defend against the gnoll's attack is something a fighter should know, roughly speaking. I think this is a case where not thinking broadly enough about the fictional outcomes is causing issues.

This all may be, sure. I don't really disagree. But I think it's pretty broad to look at it as a combatant in actual combat would be aware that at any moment, they could simply be killed. They can mitigate the risk to some extent, sure....take cover, wear armor, etc....but any single wound could be fatal. And in that sense, acting differently based on amount of HP kind of aligns with the metagaming examples that have been provided.

Don't get me wrong....I'd never question a player who played his fighter this way. I just don't question other ways people play their characters either.

If you ask me, based on my oersonal past thinking, it's because players aren't supposed to know what's in the GM's notes. Thise secret notes are where the fun is, or so I believed, and not knowing made the game better, or so I believed. Then, one year, I realized that I can tell my players absolutely everything and they'll still find ways to screw it up most entertainingly. So, I now pretty much tell my players what's what with statblocks. I play online these days, and so post the entire rules text from statblicks when an ability is used and provide resistances and immunities pretty freely. The challenge isn't guessing the monster abilities, it's being pressed anyway even though you know.

Between being open about abilities and using the no death unless the players agrees rule, I've really been able to up the danger factors. The players take more risks, and I don't pull punches. Both sides are more free to engage the fiction without having to worry about who knows what.

Yeah, I had a similar realization based on a couple of things that happened in my games, and I've really altered my thinking on the way we play, and the way I GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And all that is fine. That is a clear preference. I like my investigations to put player skill agains the mystery. And for ages I just figured this was naturally superior to other approaches. But I played with enough people who I saw genuinely had more fun if their character was a simulation of Sherlock Holmes, to understand there are just different preferences when it comes to this. By the same token, there are people who, no matter how much of the mystery they have figured out because of out of character knowledge, will strive to not allow that knowledge help their character solve it (and its because they enjoy keeping the line between character and out of character knowledge).

I just feel people are unnecessarily dismantling Maxperson's preference, when it is a perfectly grokable and valid way to play the game. If you don't like it, that is fine. I don't particularly like it either. I just think people are acting like they are master game analysts, yet all their analysis is shaped by bias. And people are taking such steps as pulling the words out from under posters, or declaring obviously valid preferences to be nonsensical. It is as weird as the foundation this thread is built upon (a strange argument about the impossibility of simulating reality).

I'm not dismantling his preference. He can like whatever he likes.

But I don't agree with all of the things he's presenting as reasons for his preferences. So I'm asking questions and providing counter examples.

This mentality reaches a counter productive point where it places anything the GM might do under suspicion. GMing is not easy work. It takes more effort and time than the players have to invest. So when I play, I am generally very open minded about what the GM wants, and wants to do. And I just don't get this mindset. Unless the GM is genuinely bad. But I feel like people are predisposed toward criticism here, they are going to label perfectly good GMs terrible.

I think that in order to understand the pros and cons of whatever approach, we have to look at how things can go wrong. So when looking at a GM centric approach, we have to look at the places where that can become problematic. Too much GM authority would seem to be one potential pitfall.

Obviously, always assuming the worst can be annoying and can get in the way of discussion....like always assuming a player would introduce a fictional element only for a mechanical advantage and not for any other reason.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that in order to understand the pros and cons of whatever approach, we have to look at how things can go wrong. So when looking at a GM centric approach, we have to look at the places where that can become problematic. Too much GM authority would seem to be one potential pitfall.

Obviously, always assuming the worst can be annoying and can get in the way of discussion....like always assuming a player would introduce a fictional element only for a mechanical advantage and not for any other reason.

Sure, but I think it is very telling where all the analysis leads: all the places things can go wrong, seem to reside amid other peoples' playstyle preference. When your analysis slowly but surely builds an argument for the playstyle you prefer, you might want to question how much bias is leaking into the debate. This just does not appear to me to be a healthy exploration of game style preferences, gaming issues, and problems. It looks like a fight between play styles where people are couching their point of view as objective analysis even though it isn't anything approaching that.

The problem isn't GM authority. GM authority can be a perfectly valid thing in a game. The issue is some GMs don't wield it well, some players bristle at it, etc. Again, if you prefer games with less GM authority, that is totally fine. But treating it as a universal problem because you don't like it: that is where this conversation goes off the rails.