G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're stealing the spotlight because your feelings are more important than mine, we're going to have an issue.
Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're defending Jane's character because you want to get into her pants, we're going to have an issue.
Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you cheated on your dice roll, we're going to have an issue.
Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're only doing it because you really hate another player and want him to suffer, we're going to have an issue.
So, here's the thing...
If you say, "Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you are doing it because you are trying to gain an advantage, based on knowledge that your character wouldn't have" then you are asking...no, begging...players to lie.
The frog example in this thread is a little bit silly, but let's use it anyway: if you know that some people at your table will blow a gasket if you "metagame", that means that in order to use this strategy you have to think of something that has a strong possibility of getting you killed, without it being obvious that's what you are doing.
And maybe nobody at your table (with "your" being applicable to anybody reading this, not specifically [MENTION=6812658]Seramus[/MENTION]) would ever be such a villain, but think about what would happen at any AL or convention table.
Is that really what we want to encourage? Keeping our thoughts either locked away, or intentionally deceiving others at the table, so that we won't be prohibited from taking actions we want to take?
A similar thing came up in a thread about social skills being used on players, whether by other players or NPCs. Here's an imaginary conversation I posted:
GM: "Do you want to do anything...?"
Barbarian: "Nope."
GM: "If you want to see if he's telling the truth I'll have you roll Insight..."
Barbarian: "No, thanks."
GM: "Huh. Do you think he's telling the truth?"
Barbarian: "I hadn't really thought about it."
GM: "Well...what are you going to do?"
Barbarian: "Nothing just yet."
GM: "Ok, well the Being turns to go and..."
Barbarian: "I attack him as soon as his back is turned."
GM: "What...why!?!?"
Barbarian: "Reasons."
GM: "You think he's lying! But your character isn't smart or wise enough to know that!"
Barbarian: "Huh? I didn't say anything about lying. I just want to attack him."
GM: "You can't. You wouldn't do that if you thought he was telling the truth..."
etc.
Surely that's not what we want to encourage, but that's what happens when you start worrying about what's going on inside the head of either a player or his/her character.