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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I played a game of Classic D&D.
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="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 7174597" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>I don't necessarily think that it is unfair, but it can be just as non-plausible as the DM who doesn't have such encounters.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Let's take an example. A group of 4 4th level PCs encounter an Adult Evil Dragon in 5E. Some DMs might think that this is unfair. Some DMs might think that this is "oh well, stuff happens".</p><p></p><p>I view it as forcing in a way. Sure, as DM, you can give some foreshadowing that the PCs should not enter the valley, maybe villagers told the PCs that there is an evil spirit in the valley that kills people. The villagers do not even know what it is because it kills anyone who goes near, but the villagers are scared crapless.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Issue #1: The DM added information into the game for a metagaming reason. He added the information because physical human beings are sitting at his table and he feels that he should warn those players of the danger, not because the PCs should actually attain that information. If the PCs would have not gone to the village, the villagers would not have been able to give them that information. So, the DM metagames and gives them foreshadowing in a different way. Maybe he throws a lone villager into the path that the PCs actually do take through the woods towards the valley, just to make sure that they get warned.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, the players decide to go talk to this evil spirit and encounter an adult dragon. Yeah, they were warned, but again, the players know that this is a metagaming warning. One that the DM threw into their path, just so that later on he can say "Hey, I warned you". Meh.</p><p></p><p>Option #1. The dragon possibly talks to them a bit, but eventually kills them. This seems like the most logical outcome 99.9% of the time. How do you think that evil dragons get 90% of their lair treasure? By killing adventurers who have some treasure and possibly magical items. They don't get their lair treasures by knocking off farmers taking their vegetables on a cart to the local town. Second note on this: They are EVIL arrogant dragons. Why would a DM gimp them and not play them as badass evil? If the DM is going to allow for impossible or near impossible encounters, he should play the evil foes as actually evil.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Option #2. The PCs kowtow to the dragon or negotiate or whatever. The DM creates some plot device so that the Dragon decides to let the PCs live if they go off and do a quest for it. Why would this ever happen from an in character logical reason?</p><p></p><p>Issue #2: It happens for metagaming reasons. There are physical players at the DMs table and it takes a few hours for everyone to create a new PC and doing this sidetracks the current adventure. So the DM gives the players an out. Or, he doesn't (DM dependent, some DMs warn PCs, then they have the dragon kill them anyway).</p><p></p><p></p><p>So the point is this: The game can be played as CAS or CAW. If it is played as CAS, the DM is metagaming the power and frequency of the encounters. If it is played as CAW, the DM is either metagaming PC knowledge, or he is playing a game of "gotcha".</p><p></p><p>Either way, the DM is metagaming (or being a d__k). One form of DM metagaming is not really any better or worse than the other form. One avoids TPKs (for the most part) ahead of time by making encounters mostly level appropriate. One tries to avoid TPKs by adjusting player behavior by forcing them to make certain narrow decisions and not "stepping over the line". As a player, I sometimes just come to a game to kick butt, not to be schooled by a DM on the proper behavior of MY PC in each circumstance. Meh. Neither is definitively better or worse, but I know which one is more fun for me as a player (i.e.. I hate wasting my gaming time running into 5 Goblins at level 10 and the encounter is over before the last PC's init even comes up, just because the DM's world is "realistic"; or alternatively having my PC killed by the impossible encounter because the players ignored or misinterpreted the DM's hints du jour).</p><p></p><p>Neither approach is really "realistic" because both of them require metagaming on the part of the DM. It's just different types of metagaming. In one case, encounters should not always be level appropriate. In the other case, not all dangers should be telegraphed.</p><p></p><p>The CAW DM might think that his world is more plausible (or realistic), but he is still adapting it to the players (by throwing out hints and foreshadows and such quite a bit, shy of him being a rat bastard DM). It might not be as obvious that the DM is metagaming his world (although smarter players do catch on real quick), but he is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 7174597, member: 2011"] I don't necessarily think that it is unfair, but it can be just as non-plausible as the DM who doesn't have such encounters. Let's take an example. A group of 4 4th level PCs encounter an Adult Evil Dragon in 5E. Some DMs might think that this is unfair. Some DMs might think that this is "oh well, stuff happens". I view it as forcing in a way. Sure, as DM, you can give some foreshadowing that the PCs should not enter the valley, maybe villagers told the PCs that there is an evil spirit in the valley that kills people. The villagers do not even know what it is because it kills anyone who goes near, but the villagers are scared crapless. Issue #1: The DM added information into the game for a metagaming reason. He added the information because physical human beings are sitting at his table and he feels that he should warn those players of the danger, not because the PCs should actually attain that information. If the PCs would have not gone to the village, the villagers would not have been able to give them that information. So, the DM metagames and gives them foreshadowing in a different way. Maybe he throws a lone villager into the path that the PCs actually do take through the woods towards the valley, just to make sure that they get warned. So, the players decide to go talk to this evil spirit and encounter an adult dragon. Yeah, they were warned, but again, the players know that this is a metagaming warning. One that the DM threw into their path, just so that later on he can say "Hey, I warned you". Meh. Option #1. The dragon possibly talks to them a bit, but eventually kills them. This seems like the most logical outcome 99.9% of the time. How do you think that evil dragons get 90% of their lair treasure? By killing adventurers who have some treasure and possibly magical items. They don't get their lair treasures by knocking off farmers taking their vegetables on a cart to the local town. Second note on this: They are EVIL arrogant dragons. Why would a DM gimp them and not play them as badass evil? If the DM is going to allow for impossible or near impossible encounters, he should play the evil foes as actually evil. Option #2. The PCs kowtow to the dragon or negotiate or whatever. The DM creates some plot device so that the Dragon decides to let the PCs live if they go off and do a quest for it. Why would this ever happen from an in character logical reason? Issue #2: It happens for metagaming reasons. There are physical players at the DMs table and it takes a few hours for everyone to create a new PC and doing this sidetracks the current adventure. So the DM gives the players an out. Or, he doesn't (DM dependent, some DMs warn PCs, then they have the dragon kill them anyway). So the point is this: The game can be played as CAS or CAW. If it is played as CAS, the DM is metagaming the power and frequency of the encounters. If it is played as CAW, the DM is either metagaming PC knowledge, or he is playing a game of "gotcha". Either way, the DM is metagaming (or being a d__k). One form of DM metagaming is not really any better or worse than the other form. One avoids TPKs (for the most part) ahead of time by making encounters mostly level appropriate. One tries to avoid TPKs by adjusting player behavior by forcing them to make certain narrow decisions and not "stepping over the line". As a player, I sometimes just come to a game to kick butt, not to be schooled by a DM on the proper behavior of MY PC in each circumstance. Meh. Neither is definitively better or worse, but I know which one is more fun for me as a player (i.e.. I hate wasting my gaming time running into 5 Goblins at level 10 and the encounter is over before the last PC's init even comes up, just because the DM's world is "realistic"; or alternatively having my PC killed by the impossible encounter because the players ignored or misinterpreted the DM's hints du jour). Neither approach is really "realistic" because both of them require metagaming on the part of the DM. It's just different types of metagaming. In one case, encounters should not always be level appropriate. In the other case, not all dangers should be telegraphed. The CAW DM might think that his world is more plausible (or realistic), but he is still adapting it to the players (by throwing out hints and foreshadows and such quite a bit, shy of him being a rat bastard DM). It might not be as obvious that the DM is metagaming his world (although smarter players do catch on real quick), but he is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I played a game of Classic D&D.
Top