metagaming

[Tripgnosis]

Ok, so in 4e every creature, pc and NPC is fully aware of any effects upon them. They know when they're marked by the fighter and what that means.... I don't like this...

I understand that the reason for this is that players tend to metagame. This way monsters and other enemies get to metagame too. But I don't think WOTC is giving us enough credit.

If players are acting too much on metagame knowledge the DM can easily balance this by acting on that same metagame knowledge on behalf of the enemies. But I don't think it's fair to make that the default policy and an actual rule in the books. Obviously just cuz its a rule doesn't mean that we have to stick to it, but I hate houseruling anything. I mean it's a complex system and the balance is precarious at best, I don't like the idea of messin with that balance.

Personally, I hate metagaming and have always made it a point to act not on what I know but what my character knows. Everyone in our group has always been good about that, including the DM. But apparently the designers of 4e think we can't do this and had to balance it out themselves. I think it makes combat less interesting, and it makes the enemies behave in much the same way they would in a video game with poor AI. I absolutely love 4e. It's infinitely more well organized and balanced than 3.x IMO, This is really my only big gripe....

ANy other opinions on this?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Consider past editions. Someone knew when a spell was cast on them. If they were unaware then no save could be made. I have problems with marks and such but its bookkeeping issues and not so much a metagame concern.

If an enemy made some gestures off to the side somewhere and then it came to your turn and the DM informed you that you are now paralyzed you might ask why. What if he told you the guy making gestures a short time ago was casting a spell on you and it was your fault that you didn't announce that you were trying to save? That would hardly be fair because as a player, what is happening has to be relayed so that it may be acted upon.

 

[Staffan]

As for marking in particular, consider what it means flavor-wise (at least for the fighter). This is a guy whose fighting style is very much "in your face", to the point where you realize that if you don't keep your full attention on him, he's gonna smack you.

From a metagaming point of view, marks are supposed to be obvious. The point of a mark isn't to be a "gotcha", it's supposed to discourage your opponents from attacking someone else. That's why they're the big ability of the defender class.

 

[Tripgnosis]

Well as far as making saving throws and other rolls. Me and our other DM's have been in the practice of making passive rolls for the playera already anyway. And we also make dummy rolls to throw em off. But my issue is with the situational effects that are unlikely to go off because the enemy isn't stupid enough to trigger them. Alot of these can be explained within the context of the game. I guess the fighters mark was a bad example in that sense. The enemy knows he's been challenged and the negative effects are pseudo-morale based for not meeting that challenge. But there are other effects that I think the enemy shouldn't be aware of, at least until they're triggered. Or maybe some other way of getting that metagame knowledge in-game. Like a spellcraft check or something, depending on the type of effect. I just think that having a rule that states that all creatures, automatically know everything about what is effecting them is too big of a catch-all. It doesn't allow for those surprises.

 

[Tripgnosis]

As for marking in particular, consider what it means flavor-wise (at least for the fighter). This is a guy whose fighting style is very much "in your face", to the point where you realize that if you don't keep your full attention on him, he's gonna smack you.

From a metagaming point of view, marks are supposed to be obvious. The point of a mark isn't to be a "gotcha", it's supposed to discourage your opponents from attacking someone else. That's why they're the big ability of the defender class.

Yeah, you're right. Like I said that one was a bad example....

But how about riposte strike. That would be a GREAT 'gotcha' power, except that the enemy would be stupid to trigger it since he knows what would happen. Hellish Rebuke is another one that SHOULD be a surprise IMO. I could name more, but I think those are 2 excellent examples...

 

[WalterKovacs]

At the same time, while a creature knows it's marked, it may not necessarily know what a fighter's mark "does" other than the penalty to hit [same with the paladin's mark]. Other 'gotcha' powers like that could easily be done as a "the monster will possibly fall for it ... once". Unless the monster is considered to be experienced against fighter's or paladins [and able to spot them] he may not be able to tell the difference between a normal mark, and one with combat challenge or divine challenge 'attached'.

The thing with triggered effects though is a monster will learn what the trick is after the first time probably. [Of course, some effects, like riposte strike and such are meant to be win-win anyway ... if the monster does something you don't want it to do, you get to do something bad to the monster ... if he knows this, he might just not do it, which is probably the better option for the player in many cases.]

 

[zillah]

I think you are using the word meta game out of context. If it was meta-gaming, thats pretty much saying cheating. But knowing what effects that you are under after someone uses an ability is not meta-gaming at all because its in the rules.

Now, for example, if a rogue uses an attack that knocks you out as part of the attack, and you look through the PHB to see what that attack is, and then tell the party, thats meta-gaming.

A creature knows its marked. It knows all the effects of the status. For example, an undead knows that it will take radiant damage if it does not attack the paladin that marked it. That is a part of the mark. If in fact creatures didn't know that they would take damage, or provoke interrupts from the fighter, then defenders would be too good, because monsters would never have a chance to do anything else. They would be dead from too many mistakes.

 

[Tripgnosis]

I think you are using the word meta game out of context. If it was meta-gaming, thats pretty much saying cheating. But knowing what effects that you are under after someone uses an ability is not meta-gaming at all because its in the rules.

True, it's not metagaming cuz it's it IN the rules. What I'm saying is that this rule is to PREVENT metagaming, which I think is unnecessary...

If in fact creatures didn't know that they would take damage, or provoke interrupts from the fighter, then defenders would be too good, because monsters would never have a chance to do anything else. They would be dead from too many mistakes.

This is why I don't wanna houserule it. Or anything. It throws off the balance. But I don't think this reasoning supports the rule. It does the opposit IMO. Even thoguh certain powers, by nature should be a surprise (like the two I mentioned) they are not because of that rule. And changing it throws the balance off which is why I wish it weren't the rule in the first place...



This is a minor gripe, and one of a very few that I have with 4e. But it's one of the things that make it feel more like a video game and less like an immersive roleplaying experience. Characters in the game are aware of the mechanics, which IMO is outside the context of the game-world. Why should a zombie be aware of much of anything let alone how a clerics power works. I mean zombies are supposed to be mindless, not tactical thinkers.

And I could understand a seasoned fighter successfully making an insight check to notice that a peculiarity of your stance suggests that your waiting for him to attack so you can riposte, but I can't see how within the context of the game every creature knows if and when you're gonna get that riposte.

I'm not saying no creature should ever be aware of these things, I just hate that all of them are always aware of all of these things.

 

[ogre]

Tripgnosis

I can understand your distaste, perhaps my perspective will help.

I see this 'metagame' knowledge of players and monsters as actually more realistic than if they didn't know of conditions. A common theme I see RPers overlook is the concept of the PCs actually being there, in the world. They can 'see' things us players can't. It's the tiny nuiances of combat or a scene, the intangible stuff that can't be described, but if you were really there, it would be obvious. As a DM I use this concept frequently, to tell players about general laws of the land, or how a government might act to a suggested course of action. It's the kind of stuff that if you were really in the world, you would know, but because you're a person sitting at a table trying to imagine it, you miss a lot of the tiny details.
This is how I explain conditions being known by creatures. It's not that they know what a fighter does (mark), its that they know he's in their face and they'll get whacked if they turn their attention. Repost is the same thing, the blade or whatever is poised and ready. It's not that they know the mechanical consequences in a metagame sense, but more, the generalized consequences of their actions. Take for example, in the real world we know the general consequences for say, not braking our car soon enough when a car ahead of us starts to turn. We learn to know when to brake and how hard to press the peddle, so we stop at a safe distance. If this action were to be broken down into game terms, the 'when' and 'how much' of braking could be simulated in mechanics, but 'we' don't think of it that way, the braking becomes second nature because we're living in the world.

Basically, that's how I play the conditions as well as other aspects of RPGs. It's because the creatures in the game are in a reality and the only way to portray that reality is for the puppeteers to be aware of how to make that reality work in the context of a game.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But how about riposte strike. That would be a GREAT 'gotcha' power, except that the enemy would be stupid to trigger it since he knows what would happen. Hellish Rebuke is another one that SHOULD be a surprise IMO. I could name more, but I think those are 2 excellent examples...

IMO, it's not really metagaming in the typical sense. I see it as these abilities having in-game effects that are then mirrored with the meta-knowledge that the players need in order to make informed decisions about their characters.

For example, with Hellish Rebuke the target might see their own pain reflected in the flickering eyes of the warlock who burned them, warning them of the consequences of their actions (I mean, of course, before the warlock even gets struck).

In the case of Riposte Strike, even the flavor-text describes it as knocking an opponent off balance, leaving them open to a counterattack. I certainly don't think that it is metagaming to know that my character has just been dealt a blow that knocked an exploitable gap in his defenses.

Players are not their characters. Even with the greatest DM in the world, details are likely to be left out; things that the characters might notice and understand relative to themselves but that the players don't (since we don't live day-to-day in a fantasy setting).

It's all well and nice for a DM to describe my character being hit by a Riposte Strike as "having been knocked off balance," but that tells me very little as a player unless it is coupled with a mechanical explanation. After all, "knocked off balance" could be expressed mechanically as any number of effects: you grant combat advantage, next time you attack you must make an athletics check or fall prone, or even that you might be open to counterattack.

The character is probably thinking, "I'm in trouble, damned if I do and damned if I don't," assuming that he even has time to think, but lacking that same first-person viewpoint the player needs a mechanical understanding of what is happening if he is to react as befits that character. At least until technology reaches a point where we can be our characters.

Keep in mind that creatures are no longer mindless in 4e. Some, like Zombies and Oozes, are dumb as a bag of rocks (Int 1) while others, like golems, are just extremely unintelligent (Int 3). But they all have some capacity for logic and decision-making.

That said, there's nothing wrong with playing a stupid monster as stupid. Sure, a zombie might on some level understand the consequences of attacking the warlock after suffering a Hellish Rebuke, but there's nothing to say (aside from you, the DM) that this will actually deter it. It is an extremely dumb monster and if it attacks anyway, destroying itself attempting to strike down the warlock, so be it. Heck, playing some monsters as making unexpected or illogical decisions can help keep your players on their toes.

If an intelligent foe decides to seek a different opponent after being the recipient of a Hellish Rebuke, I'd say the power has pulled it's weight there as well.

Finally, there are still plenty of gotcha powers in the game, they just come in the form of interrupts.