Definition of Metagaming

[MarkB]

Argh! So, if we agree, why do you have a social contract that inhibits the fighter from knowing that by disqualifying OOC reminders of those laws and their efficient application?

One good reason for this is that we learn by doing. If a player never has to think about when to apply a rule, because the other players always do it for him, then he may never achieve a deeper grasp of the rules. I've seen it happen - players who have been playing D&D literally for years, in games with a reasonably strong tactical focus, and yet they still have no real idea how to apply even basic tactical principles like flanking and AoOs.

Giving a player hints may help with both realism and effectiveness in the short term, but letting him get to grips with playing his own character, in combat as well as out of it, will leave him a better player in the long run.

 

[Rystil Arden]

One good reason for this is that we learn by doing.

That is not true for everyone. Some people are kinesthetic learners, true, but there are others who aren't. For instance, I know I'm not a usual case (though there are others who are similar), but in school, when I was forced to take notes in class, my understanding and scores plummeted. This was because I did not learn by doing and instead learned by hearing and watching, both of which were severely impaired when I had to write it down (it basically went onto the paper instead of into my memory). So I would say that while some people will never learn from being given advice, others will never learn if they are continually thrust into an intimidating decision and forced to choose without advice, whereas they would have learned if given advice that they could analyse (as in: "Ah, he told me to head over there because I can get into flanking without provoking an AoO. Now I get it" rather than: "Uhh, I have no idea--I'll just move there." "Okay, the troll hits you with an AoO and disembowels you. Next character.")

 

[fusangite]

One good reason for this is that we learn by doing. If a player never has to think about when to apply a rule, because the other players always do it for him, then he may never achieve a deeper grasp of the rules. I've seen it happen - players who have been playing D&D literally for years, in games with a reasonably strong tactical focus, and yet they still have no real idea how to apply even basic tactical principles like flanking and AoOs.

Giving a player hints may help with both realism and effectiveness in the short term, but letting him get to grips with playing his own character, in combat as well as out of it, will leave him a better player in the long run.

I haven't had this problem, myself. I generally find that the more help people get with the rules the faster they learn them.

Because there's a difference between knowledge and application of said knowledge. There's also a difference between knowing how individual things work and figuring out the best tactical way to use those things to your advantage.

But everything I've said all thread has been about the PC knowing this stuff practically not theoretically. My whole case is based on this knowledge being practical knowledge derived from lived experience (the way a Fighter in D&D is going to understand the physics of fighting) not abstracted knowledge rarely put to use (the way his player is going to understand it).

We consider it up to the player to figure these things out. Later, after the game, we might debate which tactic was best, but that's not something that we're willing to do in game.

I know you do. But everything you say seems to make the case against rather than for this position.

What you're describing seems more akin to a new Player who isn't aware of how their PC abilities work, and in that case we help them out until they're acclimated to the system. After that, they know how the rules work, and its up to them to remember and play their PC as they see fit.

But a player is never going to get as familiar as his PC is with these things.

 

[wayne62682]

That's the main thing here... I (the player) won't be as familiar with the world around me as my character, thus it shouldn't be "cheating" to recieve advice on things that my character should be aware of. Informing me of something I wouldn't know is bad; nobody has ever said it's not (myself included). Reminding me that I have a spell that would be very useful right about now is not, and I fail to see how that's anything BUT good tactics. It is suddenly metagaming because I didn't think of it on my own? Last I checked, D&D was supposed to be a team game, and we should be working as a team to accomplish the goal.

I joined in on yet another metagaming debate on the WotC boards and someone brought up an interesting point: We earlier said that a rank in a Knowledge skill doesn't equal knowing something, and that you could have heard that Trolls are weak against fire in stories as a youth or whatever. Anyways, someone brought up the idea that who says the information you heard was accurate? Maybe someone spread lies about it, or like most myths maybe it was garbled being retold through the ages (anything in the quote block that doesn't say it's from me [WayneTheGame] is from the other party):

The Knowledge checks protect you as a player as well. You can state that your player is an authority on every monster "in the book", but in response to that, I've got two words for you: Aleister Crowley. When good and evil are objective forces, spreading disinformation is a profane trust. I'm perfectly willing to tell you that no, your book insists that the secret to defeating a troll is to urinate on it. After all, if we throw out the possibility of cheating, I'm not screwing you, the player, over. I'm merely enriching your world by making it more realistic. After all, isn't the internet the largest source of unconfirmed disinformation available to us as well as a wealth of knowledge?

Again I point out that what constitutes "common knowledge" in D&D? If I grow up in an area rife with Trolls, who is to say that I DON'T know what kills one?

Your lack of ranks in Knowledge (nature) or confirmed interaction with someone who could and did tell you what to do.

After all, it's a common problem where I come from.

Exacerbated by the fact that the Priests of Vecna have been spreading the lie that a troll can only be killed by turning its body inside out or the like.

I personally don't agree with this person's opinion and think it's just a way to screw around (really by that logic ANYTHING you ever hear could be a lie or exaggerated), but wanted to bring it up on this thread for further discussion, also since I am paraphrasing several excellent points made on this thread as well to add to the discussion.

 

[dragonhead]

obviously you cant let the players know anything except what you tell them they know. im a character had an encounter will trolls or something which made them become an adventurer, then they "would" know more about them then say a fighter thats never encountered on in his live. also, to help eliminate metagaming, have players only alowed brown backed books if your playing d&d. those books were made for players, players should use them. all other books i.e. the DMG, the MM's, ect. are made for DMs, and DMs, only. plyers should keep their noses out of them thereby helping eliminate metagaming and player knowledge vs. character knowledge. nary the two shal meet.

 

[ThirdWizard]

But everything I've said all thread has been about the PC knowing this stuff practically not theoretically. My whole case is based on this knowledge being practical knowledge derived from lived experience (the way a Fighter in D&D is going to understand the physics of fighting) not abstracted knowledge rarely put to use (the way his player is going to understand it).

That would probably convince the pure simulationists.

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.

Your ooc comments to aid other Players in decision making may be a worthy goal in your game to help facilitate this gaming philosophy. However, to me, it is sacrificing too much for too little gain, and it is breaching an important social contract that we have in our group.

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. To me, that's not playing a PC, that's playing several congressional PCs (or worse, congressional NPCs) with everyone offering in their own theory about how a PC should be played and then one person determining which decision is best.

And, even if this only happens once per session, or even once every other session, that's too often for my tastes. I would kindly wish everyone to be quiet and let me play my own PC. And, if I mess up so be it. I would much rather the PC die on my own merits than succeed on someone else's, even briefly.

Cheating? I don't know. Metagaming? Definately. Wanting to bang my head on a wall? Yes, please.

Have you seen the movie The Gamers? It was mentioned briefly in the AIM conversation. In it, the rogue's Player says that he's going to sneak attack with a dagger. Another group member points out that even with triple damage it won't be enough, so he pulls out a longsword. It ends with a comedic setting up of a ballista, but that's neither here nor there.

Suffice to say we were amazed by the leniency of the DM in the movie. Amazed. Of course, there were other, even more lenient, points after that. That is an example of how I see the ooc discussion playing out, and I just don't like it.

For a new player you break things down as they go along. You don't just say to flank or not to flank, you tell them they shouldn't flank because it would put them in a dangerous position, or you tell them to go ahead and flank because they could probably drop the enemy right now or they need +2 to hit. A reminder to flank isn't going to help anyone learn tactics without these contexts being pointed out.

But, I woudn't consider this normal play. I would consider this teaching someone to play the game.

 

[Fenes]

Your ooc comments to aid other Players in decision making may be a worthy goal in your game to help facilitate this gaming philosophy. However, to me, it is sacrificing too much for too little gain, and it is breaching an important social contract that we have in our group.

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. To me, that's not playing a PC, that's playing several congressional PCs (or worse, congressional NPCs) with everyone offering in their own theory about how a PC should be played and then one person determining which decision is best.

The trick is not tp talk about what's best, or discuss what a character should do, but in simply giving the player more information, information the character would have, so that the player can make an informed decision.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The trick is not tp talk about what's best, or discuss what a character should do, but in simply giving the player more information, information the character would have, so that the player can make an informed decision.

If you don't think it is best, or at least better than what they are doing, why point it out? Would you point out the flanking opportunity for the rogue if you think it is a sub-par option for him to take?

 

[Fenes]

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.

 

[wayne62682]

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 don't think that is the issue, though... I don't think that anyone has considered something like that metagaming. But like anything else there's level of what's acceptable for each group. Sure, some groups may think that IS metagaming and institute a strict "If you (the player) forget something, your character does too." And if they enjoy playing that way, then kudos to them. I would not enjoy it.