Definition of Metagaming

[ThirdWizard]

In our campaign it usually is not about flanking but more about things like "you remember that the floor is covered in ice from that spell last round?" after a player announced "I charge". Things that would be obvious to the character, but which the player may have overlooked.

I'm sure in our games the DM would point that out. Physical conditions that aren't being taken into account are somewhat different that what I'm thinking of. So, lets say the rogue wants to climb a ledge to get to the archers above, the DM would probably point out that the slick walls would hamper his climbing.

It's like the example of the tatoo that the Player overlooks. The DM would either tell him if his character should know, or he would give an Int check if it is something that might have been forgotten or wasn't very important when first introduced.

 

[Fenes]

I have to add that we do not use a battle map, so more detailed combat advice is rare, and boils down to the DM stating "I assume you tumble in flanking position" when the rogue announces a move and attack, or describing a situation as "you could charge the wizard, but you'd probably take an AoO from his bodyguard".
A side effect of not using minis that I like.

 

[Lanefan]

A few stray thoughts wandering by about all this...

1. Physics. It's just plain easier to assume that basic physics, gravity, geology, etc. work the same in the game world as on earth (unless there's house-rules otherwise), with magic kind of overlaid on top. That way, if people want to spend the time to figure out such things there's a useable basis to work from. Players will know more than their PC's about such things in almost all circumstances, but I can live with that.

2. Table talk. If players are making suggestions they shouldn't be...e.g. when a Thief has gone off scouting and got into trouble and other players won't shut up and let the Thief's player decide what to do...there's one hammer that I as DM have occasionally used: that if a suggestion comes from someone else, that course of action is arbitrarily banned. And if that's the action that would have saved the Thief's life, so be it... ::shrug:: But the table-talk stops real fast!

3. Knowledge. This comes under what I call "preserving the mystery". An example: when the game was new and we didn't know what a Troll was, never mind that it regenerates unless you burn it or bathe it in acid, there was a mystery there. But over time, we as players have learned, and it's very difficult to keep that knowledge out of our PC's heads. And so it falls to the DM to re-create that mystery by in effect rewriting the monster manual. For basic critters, even a simple renaming will do. For others (like Trolls) it may require changing them up somehow...maybe make cold their weak point instead of fire. Iconics, like Dragons, I'd keep as is; the PC's will have heard enough legends etc. that their having some knowledge makes sense. But, most importantly: don't tell the players you've made any changes! And if, when things go awry, they complain that monsters don't work as they "should", tell 'em to keep their nosy noses out of the MM because neither they nor their PC's "should" know anything (that's why they're called *experience* points; they come from learning), and get on with the game.

4. In-combat tactics discussions on the fly. I have no problem with this, though as others have pointed out if the opposition can understand you they might react appropriately. Having a telepath in the party is invaluable in such situations...

Lanefan

 

[fusangite]

That would probably convince the pure simulationists.

I don't mind being labeled a pure simulationist, given how flexible and slippery the term is.

Philosophically, I agree with you that the PCs know all about these things, and if the Player chooses to take advantage of something like the ogre only getting 1 AoO per round, I do not consider that metagaming. On this we agree, but after that we diverge.

I'm very pleased. I too think we've actually reached agreement.

Why?

It's my PC. Your way might be fun for you, but I can't help but see it as running a bunch of PCs by committee with each person having veto power over one PC.

I see what you are saying here. But, to be fair, nobody but the player in question makes the final decision for their PC in any game I've seen. Nevertheless, I do see where you are coming from. Your emotional reward from play works differently than mine. You feel that the involvement of others in decision-making about your PC cheapens your achievements with him.

Now that I understand that this disagreement is just a matter of priorities, I'm happy to let it rest. Thanks for participating and allowing me to make sense of your position.

Physics. It's just plain easier to assume that basic physics, gravity, geology, etc. work the same in the game world as on earth (unless there's house-rules otherwise), with magic kind of overlaid on top. That way, if people want to spend the time to figure out such things there's a useable basis to work from. Players will know more than their PC's about such things in almost all circumstances, but I can live with that.

But then you end up with a totally incoherent system. What makes more sense? (a) The rules in the PHB and DMG are the major physical laws of a D&D universe? (b) The rules in the PHB and DMG are a gigantic inventory of exceptions to the major physical laws of a D&D universe?

Your theory is like the Ptolmaic astronomers debating Galileo by adding epicycles and various other eratic motions to the stars because they want to preserve a model in which the earth is at the centre of the universe. There is nothing easy about assuming that D&D physics = our world's physics except where the rules state otherwise because virtually every statement about physical laws contained in the rules contradicts the physical laws of our universe.

I would rather operate with a clear self-consistent system that is different from my reality than a self-contradictory system that purports to represent something it does not. How do you propose to do modern physics when the RAW states there are four elements not 100+? How do you reconcile that? If water is an element, how can oxygen be an element?

Nearly everything detailed in the rulebooks is a violation of our universe's physical laws. In your model, our universe's physics cannot be used as a model to explain anything. If I believe earth is an element, I can tell you what a Xorn is and how it works. If you use our physics as the explanatory framework, you lose the ability to explain elementals, outsiders, magic items, deities, spell casting, dragons, etc. etc. What good is a system of physics in a setting if it does not have the power to explain the powerful forces in the world? What is it for at that point?

I understand that this idea of the rules as a list of exceptions to the rules of the universe rather than a list of the rules of the universe is popular but it sure makes my head hurt. For me, a world doesn't become believable by being more like my reality; it becomes believable by being more consistent with itself.

 

[Lanefan]

But then you end up with a totally incoherent system. What makes more sense? (a) The rules in the PHB and DMG are the major physical laws of a D&D universe? (b) The rules in the PHB and DMG are a gigantic inventory of exceptions to the major physical laws of a D&D universe?

Your theory is like the Ptolmaic astronomers debating Galileo by adding epicycles and various other eratic motions to the stars because they want to preserve a model in which the earth is at the centre of the universe. There is nothing easy about assuming that D&D physics = our world's physics except where the rules state otherwise because virtually every statement about physical laws contained in the rules contradicts the physical laws of our universe.

I would rather operate with a clear self-consistent system that is different from my reality than a self-contradictory system that purports to represent something it does not. How do you propose to do modern physics when the RAW states there are four elements not 100+? How do you reconcile that? If water is an element, how can oxygen be an element?

Nearly everything detailed in the rulebooks is a violation of our universe's physical laws. In your model, our universe's physics cannot be used as a model to explain anything. If I believe earth is an element, I can tell you what a Xorn is and how it works. If you use our physics as the explanatory framework, you lose the ability to explain elementals, outsiders, magic items, deities, spell casting, dragons, etc. etc. What good is a system of physics in a setting if it does not have the power to explain the powerful forces in the world? What is it for at that point?

I understand that this idea of the rules as a list of exceptions to the rules of the universe rather than a list of the rules of the universe is popular but it sure makes my head hurt. For me, a world doesn't become believable by being more like my reality; it becomes believable by being more consistent with itself.

Yet by what you're saying, the DM of any game is going to have to dream up a complete and consistent system of sciences. Why? Because if things don't work the way players are used to, there has to be an alternative. Even something as simple as gravity needs to be defined, if only to answer the inevitable in-game question "how far does x-item fall in y-amount of time?".

The simplest idea I've been able to come up with so far to solve this is to have "magic" be a 6th element, along with earth, air, water, fire, and spirit. What sets magic apart is that it is also a type of energy, harnessable and shape-able by those with the talent. With this, and some adroit verbal dancing, just about anything can be explained while still keeping our familiar basis in physics for things where magic is not an issue.

And woe betide the PC who ends up on the elemental plane of magic!

Lanefan

 

[Presto2112]

So if my PC has a jar of fiery oil in his pack and we encounter a troll, should the DM ban me from using it unless I make a skill check?

No chance I may have used it regardless since burning kills pretty much anything?

How far does this go?

If your character has flasks of oil in his usual arsenal and uses one against a troll, then no problem.

If you've had a couple of flasks of oil in your backpack for a couple of months, never used them, then you run into a troll having never heard of one before, and the first thing your character does is reach for the oil, then I think I'd have a problem with that.

Fortunately, every game I've ever played had trolls on the DMs list of "Monsters That Every Tom Dick And Harry Knows About".

 

[fusangite]

Yet by what you're saying, the DM of any game is going to have to dream up a complete and consistent system of sciences. Why? Because if things don't work the way players are used to, there has to be an alternative.

Fortunately, the rules cover most of it. Most things the PCs want to do are covered by the rules. And I find that the best way to approximate D&D is to use pre-modern European physics. There is a pre-existing four-element system that it is very easy to predict. The great thing about roughly Aristotelian physics is that the answer to how things work is usually the intuitive answer. A rock falls faster than a feather because the rock is heavier; things fall down because heavy things fall towards the centre of the earth; etc.

I concede that it's a little inconvenient but it seems way way more convenient than the alternative. Instead of constantly wrestling with major inconsistencies, you just do a little figuring of stuff, bookmark a couple of web pages and you're ready to go.

Even something as simple as gravity needs to be defined, if only to answer the inevitable in-game question "how far does x-item fall in y-amount of time?".

First of all, you only have to give answers to within the nearest round. Fantasy characters do not think in seconds and have no way of measuring them. And this isn't really an inevitable question. Once you've established that heavy things fall faster than light things, there's not really much opportunity for characters to get detail finer than that.

The simplest idea I've been able to come up with so far to solve this is to have "magic" be a 6th element, along with earth, air, water, fire, and spirit.

So, really, you're not doing what you said you were doing. You have started to define your own system of physics ad hoc. It's not a route I would have gone, myself, given how hard-wired the 4-element system is but I could see how you might make this work.

The one advantage of this approach is that it replicates how people think about magic now; my games try to give the feeling of how premodern people thought about magic. As a result, I tend to work it as an extension of natural law, not an exception to it.

What sets magic apart is that it is also a type of energy, harnessable and shape-able by those with the talent. With this, and some adroit verbal dancing, just about anything can be explained while still keeping our familiar basis in physics for things where magic is not an issue.

How, exactly? It sounds to me like you don't have any room for molecules or atoms in your world. In fact, you've got an elemental system that is more at odds with modern physics than the standard D&D one is. If you make magic an element and fire an element and make modern physics true, how do you explain fire-based evocations, for instance?

 

[ST]

I've never thought metagaming was a bad thing. I've been in groups that did, and I went along with it, but in general I enjoy playing much less if there's not friendly banter and kibbitzing out of character. And hey, some of that will be about the game.

I think there's a particular subset of RPG play that values staying in character all the time, but I don't think it's in any way a "default", much less only, way to play.

Maybe part of it is that our group is never focused on winning in a particular way.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I see what you are saying here. But, to be fair, nobody but the player in question makes the final decision for their PC in any game I've seen. Nevertheless, I do see where you are coming from. Your emotional reward from play works differently than mine. You feel that the involvement of others in decision-making about your PC cheapens your achievements with him.

Now that I understand that this disagreement is just a matter of priorities, I'm happy to let it rest. Thanks for participating and allowing me to make sense of your position.

It was interesting from this side as well.