Warlord Player's job is to tell other players what to do??

[SmCaudata]

Not to sound like an idiot, but don't all uses of rules involve metagaming? Any use of a power, spell, skill, etc. involves the invocation and application of rules in an abstracted sense. The only way to avoid metagaming at the table seems to involve describing actions and having the DM adjudicate without the players discussing rules. This can be a valid way to play, but I don't remember the last game I ran or played without metagaming necessarily coming into play.

When is invocation of the game mechanics too much?

Except, you don't have to go that far to avoid metagaming. As was pointed out earlier, discussing actual game mechanics for the purpose of moving isn't meta gaming. Saying, well, I know that the poison from this moster isnt' really that deadly, so we shouldn't have issue is meta gaming. Basically, metagaming as I know it is using your own outside knowledge of the game mechanics and projecting that onto your PCs. Using abstracted out of character terms to describe things your character WOULD know or do, is not. Metagaming IS NOT the same as out of character. If people ONLY do things according to what their character would know... they are never metagaming even if they are never in character.

 

[king_ghidorah]

Except, you don't have to go that far to avoid metagaming. As was pointed out earlier, discussing actual game mechanics for the purpose of moving isn't meta gaming. Saying, well, I know that the poison from this moster isnt' really that deadly, so we shouldn't have issue is meta gaming. Basically, metagaming as I know it is using your own outside knowledge of the game mechanics and projecting that onto your PCs. Using abstracted out of character terms to describe things your character WOULD know or do, is not. Metagaming IS NOT the same as out of character. If people ONLY do things according to what their character would know... they are never metagaming even if they are never in character.

But what I keep reading in people's complaints about 4e -- including in some comments on this thread -- is that one of the problems about 4e powers is that they encourage metagaming.

I don't think everyone is discussing metagaming in the same sense you are. There seems to be a concern that intrusion of game rules into decision making is problematic.

 

[Spatula]

Depends on the specifics, when rules become to specific and too controlling of the setting we get bogged down in such specific writing that things become mundane and there is no creative/descriptive flair to the game when it comes to the rules.

It's pretty easy to seperate "fluff" from mechanics so that people don't mistake creative flair for anything other the window dressing it is. Look at, for example, all the 4e powers we've seen to date, or 3.5e spell descriptions. Little bit of fluff at the top, cold hard rules telling you how it works in the game.

 

[Kobu]

I don't think everyone is discussing metagaming in the same sense you are. There seems to be a concern that intrusion of game rules into decision making is problematic.

And I am not sure where you are getting your idea of it from since I haven't seen anyone express metagaming any other way than what SmCaudata wrote. It's using your knowledge as a player in a way that breaks from what your character would ordinarily do.

Someone saying "I'm hurt bad--get up here and use your best healing spell on me" is the same as a player saying "I'm down 50 HP. Cast cure critical on me next round." That's not metagaming.

Having the game grind to a halt while the players sit around discussing where everyone is going to move to avoid attacks of opportunity, set up healing chains, or position characters to optimize or avoid areas of effects general involves metagaming and I think it takes a lot of fun out of the game.

The warlord as presented feels like it will be encouraging that sort of metagaming--like you have one player designated to look at the battle map like a chessboard. That player is meant to move his pieces around to best effect, and that includes moving pieces other players rightly feel are theirs to move as they please.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It's pretty easy to seperate "fluff" from mechanics so that people don't mistake creative flair for anything other the window dressing it is. Look at, for example, all the 4e powers we've seen to date, or 3.5e spell descriptions. Little bit of fluff at the top, cold hard rules telling you how it works in the game.

Oh that isn't what I mean, well if I am allowed I shall do a horrible over-exaggeration.

"Can I throw my dagger and cut the rope?"

"Sorry, you can't the dagger can only be thrown when you have a northerly-wind at your back."

Obviously no rule like that would be created, but that is the kind of situation that can arise when rules become too-specific.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

And I am not sure where you are getting your idea of it from since I haven't seen anyone express metagaming any other way than what SmCaudata wrote. It's using your knowledge as a player in a way that breaks from what your character would ordinarily do.

Someone saying "I'm hurt bad--get up here and use your best healing spell on me" is the same as a player saying "I'm down 50 HP. Cast cure critical on me next round." That's not metagaming.

Having the game grind to a halt while the players sit around discussing where everyone is going to move to avoid attacks of opportunity, set up healing chains, or position characters to optimize or avoid areas of effects general involves metagaming and I think it takes a lot of fun out of the game.

The warlord as presented feels like it will be encouraging that sort of metagaming--like you have one player designated to look at the battle map like a chessboard. That player is meant to move his pieces around to best effect, and that includes moving pieces other players rightly feel are theirs to move as they please.

Ehh, I don't really see it... Now of-course this is my personal opinion but...

The moves presented are very general and very fast-paced in use. They generally revolve around giving extra-movement, allowing character to do more powerful things on and off their turn, etc.

Plus with them lasting all encounter, less debate on when is best to use them, beyond normal when to use daily-power.

The tacticalness is sorta spread amongst all the characters, and is thus given smaller need for time to think overall.

The player once he is able to charge decides whether or not to charge and at whom.

The players can decide whether they should continue to pin the target or attack another, etc.

It is not just the Warlord being tactfully minded, he simply gives more tactical opportunities to the rest of the party (including himself).

 

[KarinsDad]

I'll point out that while it is mandatory, the Warlord need not actually move anyone. You can choose to slide characters less distance than the power states; he can simply choose to slide them 0 squares.

I find it interesting the sheer number of people who write on the Internet and just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

The rule states that he will slide the ally 1 square. Not 0, not 2, not 47.

One.

 

[Kobu]

Oh that isn't what I mean, well if I am allowed I shall do a horrible over-exaggeration.

"Can I throw my dagger and cut the rope?"

"Sorry, you can't the dagger can only be thrown when you have a northerly-wind at your back."

Obviously no rule like that would be created, but that is the kind of situation that can arise when rules become too-specific.

That's not the same thing at all. The rules that exist should be clear and precise and not leave room for interpretation. No one is proposing that rules should exist for everything.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I'm not saying rules should exist for everything what I am saying is when a rule becomes so specific that it becomes impossible to use said rule in a creative manner that then becomes outside the specific parameters of said rule.

Thus my example, horribly-exagerrated but the person wanted to do something that he should be able to do, but overly-specific rules hinder that from happening.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The warlord as presented feels like it will be encouraging that sort of metagaming--like you have one player designated to look at the battle map like a chessboard. That player is meant to move his pieces around to best effect, and that includes moving pieces other players rightly feel are theirs to move as they please.

Except everyone gets to move other allies, once that daily is activated. Not just the Warlord.

-Hyp.