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 GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
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="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7577665" data-attributes="member: 6785785"><p>No. Not every example of metagaming is bad. Maybe none is bad. It really depends on table expectations and desires, and the system you're playing. You are clearly talking about D&D, so again, that's how I'm proceeding with the discussion, but I think it's worth a momentary detour from D&D to point that out. Blades in the Dark, for instance, offers as one of a GM's Best Practices to "Keep the meta channel open". The game expects the GM and players to discuss meta content. So clearly, metagaming is not always bad. Perhaps in the context of D&D only you may claim that, but even then, it's just your opinion. I am very comfortable with certain types of metagaming in D&D. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe, maybe not. We don't know what the expectations were, or how much was established prior to play. </p><p></p><p>And denial <em>does not always</em> equate to Mother May I, but in this instance I think it's a pretty strong example. "DM may I now use fire on the troll?" </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The lack of a clear definition was for Mother May I as a term. There's no set definition, as this thread very clearly states. Even this post. I don't think the term need be pejorative. You do. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You don't get to tell people what they can say or how they can say it. Regardless that a pejorative absolutely requires intent, that doesn't change the fact that people can use whatever term they want to in a discussion like this. This thread and the one that spawned it are largely involved in determining what the term means, so it would be impossible not to use it. </p><p></p><p>Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you're using metagaming as a pejorative by insisting that it's cheating, and no manner of qualifying statements matter, it's simply a pejorative and therefore not allowed in the discussion. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't agree. I think there are degrees that are allowed. Honestly, if I had to take as strong a stance as you like to take, I'd say there's no such thing as a RPG without metagaming on the part of the players. It's simply impossible. </p><p></p><p>So really, the question is "how much is allowed?" rather than "is any allowed?"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except for the DM, right? He can alter any rolls he sees fit, right? He can also add any house rule he likes or any amount of metagaming and so on. It's the DM's game, right? </p><p></p><p>And you wonder why people are looking at this as Mother May I? The DM is more important than the players, and has final say on nearly everything. This is the dynamic that people are criticizing, and your defense basically consists of doubling down on it. </p><p></p><p>It like when someone says "stop shouting" and the other replies "I'M NOT BLOODY SHOUTING!"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is where judgment is needed. You seem to place complete trust in the DM in all other matters, so why would you think this one would be so challenging? </p><p></p><p>For me, it's about fun. We're playing a game, right? It's meant to be a fun, enjoyable experience. Let's look at the two examples we've been discussing.</p><p></p><p>In one, the players used a meta game trick to avoid a boring slog of fighting trolls and pretending they don't know the trick to killing them. They've done so in a way that contradicts nothing, and allows them to move more quickly past this challenge, and to get to something they find more interesting. They're trying to have fun. By contrast, the DM forcing them into some kind of arbitrary "pretend-to-guess-the-secret-you-already-know" encounter sounds pretty boring. </p><p></p><p>In the other example, a player is familiar with a module having run it for another play group previously. Depending on how it's handled, the player can keep it to himself and allow others to enjoy the game, and he can play as a kind of observer, maybe enjoying watching others work toward figuring out and facing the challenges. This player sounds like he's trying to have fun and to ensure that others are, too. Seems all good to me. </p><p></p><p>But if the player doesn't mention that he's familiar with the module, and instead seems to quickly figure out all the challenges and deal with all the obstacles....where's the fun in that? Maybe a person could get some kind of enjoyment out of that, but I would think it would be minimal when compared with a more standard form of play. And he's certainly not worried about the fun of the other players or the DM. So I'd view this as bad. </p><p></p><p>It doesn't need to be that difficult. </p><p></p><p>And I'm not saying that I allow any and all metagaming. Not by any means. I'll very often ask for all other players to be quiet and not offer advice when one PC is faced with some kind of decision where communication is not possible, and so on. That kind of stuff makes the encounters more dynamic and fun, and helps change things up. I like and value variety in my game, so that's what I try to do. If I had a player who came to me and said that the adventure I was about to run was one they were familiar with, I'd work with them to use that knowledge to make the experience unique. I'd incorporate the fact that the player knows the adventure into how I ran it. </p><p></p><p>There are plenty of ways to allow metagaming that are acceptable and which can enhance the game rather than take away from it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 7577665, member: 6785785"] No. Not every example of metagaming is bad. Maybe none is bad. It really depends on table expectations and desires, and the system you're playing. You are clearly talking about D&D, so again, that's how I'm proceeding with the discussion, but I think it's worth a momentary detour from D&D to point that out. Blades in the Dark, for instance, offers as one of a GM's Best Practices to "Keep the meta channel open". The game expects the GM and players to discuss meta content. So clearly, metagaming is not always bad. Perhaps in the context of D&D only you may claim that, but even then, it's just your opinion. I am very comfortable with certain types of metagaming in D&D. Maybe, maybe not. We don't know what the expectations were, or how much was established prior to play. And denial [I]does not always[/I] equate to Mother May I, but in this instance I think it's a pretty strong example. "DM may I now use fire on the troll?" The lack of a clear definition was for Mother May I as a term. There's no set definition, as this thread very clearly states. Even this post. I don't think the term need be pejorative. You do. You don't get to tell people what they can say or how they can say it. Regardless that a pejorative absolutely requires intent, that doesn't change the fact that people can use whatever term they want to in a discussion like this. This thread and the one that spawned it are largely involved in determining what the term means, so it would be impossible not to use it. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you're using metagaming as a pejorative by insisting that it's cheating, and no manner of qualifying statements matter, it's simply a pejorative and therefore not allowed in the discussion. I don't agree. I think there are degrees that are allowed. Honestly, if I had to take as strong a stance as you like to take, I'd say there's no such thing as a RPG without metagaming on the part of the players. It's simply impossible. So really, the question is "how much is allowed?" rather than "is any allowed?" Except for the DM, right? He can alter any rolls he sees fit, right? He can also add any house rule he likes or any amount of metagaming and so on. It's the DM's game, right? And you wonder why people are looking at this as Mother May I? The DM is more important than the players, and has final say on nearly everything. This is the dynamic that people are criticizing, and your defense basically consists of doubling down on it. It like when someone says "stop shouting" and the other replies "I'M NOT BLOODY SHOUTING!" This is where judgment is needed. You seem to place complete trust in the DM in all other matters, so why would you think this one would be so challenging? For me, it's about fun. We're playing a game, right? It's meant to be a fun, enjoyable experience. Let's look at the two examples we've been discussing. In one, the players used a meta game trick to avoid a boring slog of fighting trolls and pretending they don't know the trick to killing them. They've done so in a way that contradicts nothing, and allows them to move more quickly past this challenge, and to get to something they find more interesting. They're trying to have fun. By contrast, the DM forcing them into some kind of arbitrary "pretend-to-guess-the-secret-you-already-know" encounter sounds pretty boring. In the other example, a player is familiar with a module having run it for another play group previously. Depending on how it's handled, the player can keep it to himself and allow others to enjoy the game, and he can play as a kind of observer, maybe enjoying watching others work toward figuring out and facing the challenges. This player sounds like he's trying to have fun and to ensure that others are, too. Seems all good to me. But if the player doesn't mention that he's familiar with the module, and instead seems to quickly figure out all the challenges and deal with all the obstacles....where's the fun in that? Maybe a person could get some kind of enjoyment out of that, but I would think it would be minimal when compared with a more standard form of play. And he's certainly not worried about the fun of the other players or the DM. So I'd view this as bad. It doesn't need to be that difficult. And I'm not saying that I allow any and all metagaming. Not by any means. I'll very often ask for all other players to be quiet and not offer advice when one PC is faced with some kind of decision where communication is not possible, and so on. That kind of stuff makes the encounters more dynamic and fun, and helps change things up. I like and value variety in my game, so that's what I try to do. If I had a player who came to me and said that the adventure I was about to run was one they were familiar with, I'd work with them to use that knowledge to make the experience unique. I'd incorporate the fact that the player knows the adventure into how I ran it. There are plenty of ways to allow metagaming that are acceptable and which can enhance the game rather than take away from it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Top