Definition of Metagaming

[ThirdWizard]

Ooh, its kind of like the fire question in reverse.

Yep, that's what we'd expect. We will correct someone even if its to the party's detriment if they make a mistake. Same thing if he had tried to drink a potion that he had already drunk or tried to cast a spell without having the material component.

It isn't about immersion for us (no more so than other groups I think at least), so it isn't about breaking in-character dialogue/actions that we dislike more than giving advice and helping each other out of character instead of in character.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Ah, that is enlightening then--it is only not allowed to benefit the other character, then. So actually, I was a little bit trickier than just asking the fire question in reverse--imagine Player1 (Bob) adds the following to his line (remember that Player 2 (Tom) mentioned Scorching Ray when explaining the reasoning of why Bob swapped out Magic Missile).

Player1: Ah, that's right. Thanks Tom. No Magic Missile then. But that also reminded me that I do have Scorching Ray now. Time for that troll to BURN! That's 4d6 damage, and don't forget the weakness.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hah, I completely missed that. Which means it would probably get past ime if I were DMing. More than likely, in an actual game, if someone made some kind of off the wall comment like not having a fire spell when they obviously had it, the looks it would get of amazement would be enough to clue the person in. We don't play poker, after all.

Of course, all this will vary depending on mood and how the session has been going so far. If the DM has to be constantly reminding someone of their spell list for some strange reason, Players will probably start chiming in along with him out of frustration. If everything has been going smoothly so far, they'd be less inclined to do so.

 

[Fenes]

I am of the opinion that characters should not be hampered by lack of player knowledge. If a player is playing a knight raised at the royal court f.e., then I'd give the player advice out of character if needed to enable him to play his character - like "remember, the duke of glenbary is the king's cousin, but the queen hates him" or "in such a situation, protocoll dictates that all but the king kneel. It's up to you if your knight keeps standing anyway". That's for knowledge I assume the knight would have - more esoteric knowledge is subject to knowledge skill rolls.
Same, if more carefully, with tactical advice, though combat is less emphasised in our campaigns.
One should never play the character for the player, but the player shouldn't be left blind, making decisions without the knowledge his character would have - it kills immersion much more for me if a battle-trained knight suddenly acts like a peasant in combat because the player forgot a few rules/feats/options during the holidays than if the players advise each other. "What would my character know about this?" is a standard question asked in my campaigns.

 

[MarkB]

I see where your coming from but isn't what you describe, one party member telling others how to react in combat called leading? If squad leaders can do it why not PCs? I'd certainly allow this as long as the orders are shouted out and the leader is not directing character's based on knowledge he does not have. Just try to shout your orders in a language the monsters don't know or use "code words" just like in basketball or american football where the team captain or quarterback calls out the play in "code" or instructions to adjust tactics (usually not in code such as just recognizing the opponents play).

Message is a highly useful and sorely-neglected cantrip in this regard.

 

[wayne62682]

That's sadly what my group ends up doing.. deciding on a "code language" that we assume most monsters won't understand. It seems like a hackjob solution to something that shouldn't even be an issue to me, however, which is why I keep ranting about it

I've gleaned a lot of useful information from this thread, even if I don't agree with a lot of it. It just bothers me to no end that I have to telegraph to the monster what I'm planning on doing because it's "cheating" to tell another player to do something OOC and have them act on it. Maybe I don't see the distinction because when I played 2nd (granted I was a lot younger at the time) nobody cared about it, and I haven't gotten over that mindset.

Regards,
Wayne

 

[fusangite]

Without specifics, it will be impossible to know, and it will be entirely setting dependant.

Are trolls nearby in the Swamp of Horrors? Are they on the other side of the world across an ocean and no one the PCs have ever met has actually seen one? That's going to change how its approached.

My point is that you are assuming that if knowledge is more remote than second-hand, it will be inaccurate. This is based, in my view, on a certain perception of premodern people that, while popular, is not one I share.

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.

Obviously I'm not making myself clear so I'll give it another shot. Forgive me if I seem pedantic or condescending here; I'm just trying to make sure my third attempt at stating this isn't another failure.

1. When people think about fantasy settings, they imagine them like pre-modern terrestrial societies with the addition of magic, be they medieval or ancient.
2. When people imagine individuals living in ancient and medieval societies, they tend to, thanks to modern popular culture, imagine such people as having inaccurate ideas about their world and its physical laws.
3. People therefore assume that the average person in a D&D society goes around with a bunch of erroneous ideas about the world around them and its physical laws.
4. People play D&D on the assumption that, unless the rules state otherwise, as in the Knowledge (*) skills, characters in D&D worlds will have inaccurate ideas about their universe's physical laws and data outside their firsthand experience.
5. For the above-stated reasons, people assume that characters routinely misjudge how flanking, attacks of opportunity, etc. work because, unlike their players, they don't have a handle on the physical laws of the universe they inhabit.

I would suggest that, if you are engaged in combat routinely and if it is your job, as it is the job of most adventurers, even though you will not comprehend the rules of the physical universe in an academic sense, your powers as an observer will allow you to apprehend, even if you don't consciously know it, how attacks of opportunity work. If something (a) always works the same way, (b) is your job, (c) is something you practice a lot and (d) is something the knowledge of which your life depends on, I just don't buy that you will understand it less than someone whose job it is not, who practices it little and to whose life it is irrelevant.

It makes zero sense to me for your average adventurer to have less practical understanding of the physical laws governing combat less than your average D&D player.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It makes zero sense to me for your average adventurer to have less practical understanding of the physical laws governing combat less than your average D&D player.

Ah, what it sounds like you're talking about is like the my-wizard-doesn't-know-about-levels thing despite the fact that wizards all use the Vancian system, and if one can cast 4th level spells and the other can cast 5th level spells, and every wizard who just got 5th level spells knows basically the same number of spells, its insane for the PCs to ignore these facts.

I'm firmly on the side of the laws of physics in D&D are the rules of the game, and for a fighter to know that the monster with reach is going to only get one swing on the enitre party unless it has special training (ie Combat Reflexes) is perfectly normal. The rogue understands that flanking gives him Sneak Attack, the wizard knows that certain people are more susceptible to certain spells, and so on and so forth. You might want to spice up the descriptions when talking in character, but we don't pretend that the characters don't know how the world works around them. A fighter not knowing how attacks of opportunity work would just be silly and completely unbelievable, IMO.

 

[fusangite]

I'm firmly on the side of the laws of physics in D&D are the rules of the game...

Again, agreement!

but we don't pretend that the characters don't know how the world works around them. A fighter not knowing how attacks of opportunity work would just be silly and completely unbelievable, IMO.

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?

 

[ThirdWizard]

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?

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. 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.

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.