Definition of Metagaming

[Rystil Arden]

But, I don't see how it applies to ooc talking for in character things, especially combat. Having an understanding of the workings of the physical sciences isn't going to mean you you always see the flanking opportunity, or that you'll remember what the tatoo of the assassins of the silver flame looks like. I think you're going to have to explain to me what you mean a bit more before I understand what you're trying to get at.

But there's also no reason to assume you won't either. That's what makes the argument of your friend in the quote block above so unusual. Let's take the example of flanking to the extreme: What if the character is a level 20 Rogue with 30+ Intelligence, beyond the realm of mere mortals, yet is being played by a player who is without a doubt clueless. Is it really fair to deny a flanking opportunity that every other player sees and that certainly the character would see as well just because the player doesn't see it? If so, then assuming also that the players of characters of lower Int should be trying to dumb their actions down, you're basically shoehorning the players who are smarter/better at the game into playing the intelligent characters if they hope for the group to accomplish anything.

Similarly, in the vein of suggesting spell choices, I propose the following scenario:

Player1: Darn, it's a troll. I sure wish my Sorcerer had fire magic to use, but since I don't have any, I'll cast--
Player2: Psst, Bob. You do have fire magic. You just got Scorching Ray.
Player1: Oh yeah! Thanks!

In my view, it would be criminal for the second player to allow the first player to continue the action without mentioning that he had scorching ray. After all, he has already displayed the thought process behind the use of fire magic, and the only point is that he can't remember what spells he has.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Interesting..

Given my set of players have a hard time remembering things like how 'Stunning Fist' works, I have no problem with teh group working as a team to remember details about my campaign world.

I also have no problem with players kibitzing regarding tactical manuevering OOC for pretty much the same reason. The more experienced the players become, the less they listen to the kibitzing and rely on thier own. Eventually the kibitzing drops off as each player becomes knowledgable with the intricate interactions between thier characters and the rules.
Also eventually players can make moves and expect another player to respond in the tactically effecient manner.

The parallel with Axis and Allies in, IMO, a very good one. A new player takes a fair bit of coaching... sometimes from thier enemies.. to get the hang of how the battles impact the war. As they gain experience they become less reliant on the coaching but still occasionally need to be reminded of how certain rules, fx battleship prep, works. Finally they become knowledgable enough with the rules and the feel of the game to work in concert with thier allies despite the lack of table talk.
{It happens I have an A&A game this weekend and will have some new players present }

Is it cheating? IMHO you can only cheat if you can win... and to me this game is about having fun, not winning. But that gets into the whole cheat/fudge/etc.. thread that has been hashed over plenty of times already.

To me, meta-gaming is an issue each gaming group needs to determine where the line is drawn for themselves.. and occassionally even seperate lines based on what game is being played. While I would enjoy a group that kept tactical conversation IC, I find that some OOC makes up for the fact that I do not spend my days working with and training with the other players 24/7. After all, its the character being played, not me as a character.

YMMV

 

[wayne62682]

Well, that's exactly my argument. It's playing tactically for another player to mention something OOC to you if you would reasonably know it to begin with. Now, I consider it "cheating" if someone else mentions something you WOULDN'T know, for example if a PC knows that the guy you're talking to is a vampire, but is in another area at the time (in which case I would forbid the player from mentioning that). However, as I said my group considers it metagaming to even give OOC advice to someone else (see the quote from my DM), even when it's something they as a character would know. Thus as a group we lose tactical advantages in combat because I'll notice something that someone else overlooked but will be unable to remind them.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I had another thought of a scenario to see what the 'all OOC comments during battle are metagaming' crowd would say (for those keeping count, you can place me generally in the fusangite school of thought on this issue).

Player1: Okay, I'm casting Scorching Ray. I roll a 23, and that's 4d6 Damage.
GM: Okay, you singe the blackguard's nice armour. Roll damage.
Player2: Wait a minute. Bob, your Sorcerer is 7th level, right?
Player1: Yeah, so?
Player2: That means you get two rays when you cast the spell.
Player1: Really, I thought that was at 8th.
GM: Me too.
Player2: Nope, 7th--check it out.
Player1: Wow, sweet. You're right. I forgot to check that--thanks Tom.

So would the response from a 'all such comments are metagaming' GM be more like

GM: Yeah, good catch Tom. That's something that would be true regardless, so it was okay to bring it up in this case.

(the above is what I expect, by the way) or more like

GM: Uhhh...how dare you deign to give OOC advice during combat! Clearly Bob's character...uhhh...uhmm...look! It says you can voluntarily lower your caster level on any spell to the minimum required to cast it. So clearly, without telling us, Bob lowered his caster level to 6 on the spell--you could tell when he shot only one ray. As for you, Tom, stop metagaming--you're ruining it for everyone!

 

[ThirdWizard]

Rules corrections are encouraged.

In the case where someone is rolling the wrong damage, speaking up is something that I would want the Players to do. I also encourage them to correct me when I'm DMing if it looks like I made a mistake somewhere (monster moved and took a full attack for instance, or I forgot to tell them to roll saves vs. paralyzation).

That's not advice, that's making sure we're playing by the rules of the game.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Rules corrections are encouraged.

In the case where someone is rolling the wrong damage, speaking up is something that I would want the Players to do. I also encourage them to correct me when I'm DMing if it looks like I made a mistake somewhere (monster moved and took a full attack for instance, or I forgot to tell them to roll saves vs. paralyzation).

That's not advice, that's making sure we're playing by the rules of the game.

Cool. I figured that. What about Tom correcting Bob when Bob states flatly that his Sorcerer doesn't have any fire spells when the sorcerer actually does have one (and it's one of the character's tiny amount of spells known on the perfection of which he focuses his entire being)?

 

[ThirdWizard]

In our games, Bob is probably intentionally misleading the other PCs for some nefarous purpose.

However, given things are at face value (), the DM would step in and remind him. Remember only 2 PCs, so its easy for us. In fact, in the given example in the OP, I would give the PCs Int (or an applicable Knowledge) check to remember (or have studied) the tatoo in question.

 

[Rystil Arden]

What if the GM also didn't remember that Bob had Scorching Ray?

 

[ThirdWizard]

What if the GM also didn't remember that Bob had Scorching Ray?

Pass him a note.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well that answers that then (and nearly exhausts my line of questioning)

That leaves me with one more hypothetical, based on your answer to the rules correction above. Tell me if this one would be acceptable at your table:

Player1: Darn, it's a troll. I sure wish my Sorcerer had fire magic to use, but since I don't have any, I'll cast Magic Missile.
GM: Okey dokey. That's an automatic hit, so roll 2d4+2
Player2: Bob, you actually don't have Magic Missile.
Player1: Huh? Sure I do. I used it against the kobold shaman last week.
Player2: Yes you did, but then you leveled up to level 4, remember? You decided that since you took Scorching Ray, you would swap Magic Missile for Shield.
Player1: Oh yeah, good catch!