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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7578574" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Here is the passage about "metagame thinking" (DMG p 15). It says <em>nothing</em> about knowledge of trolls:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Players get the best enjoyment when they preserve the willing suspension of disbelief. A roleplaying game’s premise is that it is an experience of fictional people in a fictional world.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It’s like a character in a movie knowing he’s in a movie and acting accordingly. "This dragon must be a few levels higher than we are," a player might say. "The DM wouldn’t throw such a tough monster at us!" Or you might hear, "The read aloud text spent a lot of time on that door - let’s search it again!"</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Discourage this by giving players a gentle verbal reminder: "But what do your characters think?" Or, you could curb metagame thinking by asking for Perception checks when there’s nothing to see, or setting up an encounter that is much higher level than the characters are. Just make sure to give them a way to avoid it or retreat.</p><p></p><p>A player deciding that his/her PC uses fire against a troll isn't "thinking about the game as a game". It's thinking about the ficiton - in particular, the in-fiction weakness of the troll. If the GM asks "What is your character thinking?", the answer would be "That this troll is vulnerable to fire."</p><p></p><p>(Also: a "gentle verbal reminder" is not a permission to the GM to gate player action declarations behind knowledge checks.)</p><p></p><p>And if you look at the discussion of player types, each has a "Be sure that the X doesn't . . ." followed by a list of possible player behaviours that might spoil the game for the other players. In the case of the explorer, this says "Be sure the explorer doesn't . . . <u>se knowledge of the game world to his own advantage." The "his" here contrasts with the playing group as a whole. An "explorer" who uses knowledge of trolls' vulnerabilities to beat a troll isn't engaging in disruptive behaviour to his (purely personal) advantage.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>I'm not sure how you envisage this working.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>It's pretty clear in 4e who has authority over what aspects of the fiction. There can be borderline cases - if a player writes up some backstory which includes the introduction of some NPCs into the fiction, and then one of these backstory NPCs is introduced into play by the GM, who has authority over that NPC - player or GM? In practice my view is that it's wise for the GM to (at least) take the players' opinion seriously, rather than just run roughshod over some player-authored backstory.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>But that's not what's going on in your case, where - at least as I take it - the BBEG is a NPC who has been introduced into the fiction by the GM, not the player.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>If a player declares, <em>I use to know Z and Z's secret plan is such-and-such</em>, and Z is a NPC known by the table to be under the GM's control - which is what I take it you are positing when you refer to a BBEG - then the GM is free to just ignore this. Because the player has no authority to tell the GM how to play a GM-controlled NPC. If Z is a NPC who was introduced into the fiction by the GM, then the GM is also entitled to deny the player's posited connection between the PC and Z, although whether that would be good or bad GMing will depend almost completely on context. And obviously a GM might accept the player's stipulation as stating a truth about the PC's beliefs - eg by deciding that Z changed his/her mind, or lied to and manipulated his/her childhood friend.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>Likewise, the fact that a player knows about trolls and fires, and plays his/her PC as having the same knowledge, doesn't have any implications for what monsters the GM can use. Eg the GM is free to use fire-immune trolls if s/he wants. But this doesn't stop a player establishing what his/her PC believes about trolls.</u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u>4e is a tightly-designed game. It doesn't assume that (1) the GM will use puzzles to which (2) the players know the answers but which (3) the players must pretend they don't know in the play of the game. Because that - to be frank - is terrible design!</u></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7578574, member: 42582"] Here is the passage about "metagame thinking" (DMG p 15). It says [I]nothing[/I] about knowledge of trolls: [indent]Players get the best enjoyment when they preserve the willing suspension of disbelief. A roleplaying game’s premise is that it is an experience of fictional people in a fictional world. Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It’s like a character in a movie knowing he’s in a movie and acting accordingly. "This dragon must be a few levels higher than we are," a player might say. "The DM wouldn’t throw such a tough monster at us!" Or you might hear, "The read aloud text spent a lot of time on that door - let’s search it again!" Discourage this by giving players a gentle verbal reminder: "But what do your characters think?" Or, you could curb metagame thinking by asking for Perception checks when there’s nothing to see, or setting up an encounter that is much higher level than the characters are. Just make sure to give them a way to avoid it or retreat.[/indent] A player deciding that his/her PC uses fire against a troll isn't "thinking about the game as a game". It's thinking about the ficiton - in particular, the in-fiction weakness of the troll. If the GM asks "What is your character thinking?", the answer would be "That this troll is vulnerable to fire." (Also: a "gentle verbal reminder" is not a permission to the GM to gate player action declarations behind knowledge checks.) And if you look at the discussion of player types, each has a "Be sure that the X doesn't . . ." followed by a list of possible player behaviours that might spoil the game for the other players. In the case of the explorer, this says "Be sure the explorer doesn't . . . [u]se knowledge of the game world to his own advantage." The "his" here contrasts with the playing group as a whole. An "explorer" who uses knowledge of trolls' vulnerabilities to beat a troll isn't engaging in disruptive behaviour to his (purely personal) advantage. I'm not sure how you envisage this working. It's pretty clear in 4e who has authority over what aspects of the fiction. There can be borderline cases - if a player writes up some backstory which includes the introduction of some NPCs into the fiction, and then one of these backstory NPCs is introduced into play by the GM, who has authority over that NPC - player or GM? In practice my view is that it's wise for the GM to (at least) take the players' opinion seriously, rather than just run roughshod over some player-authored backstory. But that's not what's going on in your case, where - at least as I take it - the BBEG is a NPC who has been introduced into the fiction by the GM, not the player. If a player declares, [I]I use to know Z and Z's secret plan is such-and-such[/I], and Z is a NPC known by the table to be under the GM's control - which is what I take it you are positing when you refer to a BBEG - then the GM is free to just ignore this. Because the player has no authority to tell the GM how to play a GM-controlled NPC. If Z is a NPC who was introduced into the fiction by the GM, then the GM is also entitled to deny the player's posited connection between the PC and Z, although whether that would be good or bad GMing will depend almost completely on context. And obviously a GM might accept the player's stipulation as stating a truth about the PC's beliefs - eg by deciding that Z changed his/her mind, or lied to and manipulated his/her childhood friend. Likewise, the fact that a player knows about trolls and fires, and plays his/her PC as having the same knowledge, doesn't have any implications for what monsters the GM can use. Eg the GM is free to use fire-immune trolls if s/he wants. But this doesn't stop a player establishing what his/her PC believes about trolls. 4e is a tightly-designed game. It doesn't assume that (1) the GM will use puzzles to which (2) the players know the answers but which (3) the players must pretend they don't know in the play of the game. Because that - to be frank - is terrible design![/u] [/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