What would we do with a fictional character in a movie or novel that we are creating?
Probably something quite different than we would do with a fictional character in a RPG. In a movie or novel there's only one creative agency (the writer(s)) where in a typical RPG there's a bunch of not-always-in-agreement creative agencies: the DM creates the world and backstory, the players create some key personalities that inhabit said world, and the story of the actions of said personalities (i.e. what gets played out in the game) is created by all involved. Sometimes these creative agencies might conflict - a player claims his character is the son of the King while the DM has already determined the King has no heirs - and in cases like this the DM takes precedence.
Or, coincidence. A movie or novel might be well served by having the protagonator just happen to know exactly what to do when (though even here if it's blatant enough to be noticeable it bugs me), just to keep the story going toward its predetermined end point. But a RPG is not well served by this at all - for one thing, it doesn't (or certainly shouldn't) have a predetermined end point - and a character not knowing about the trap even though its player does can be just as contributory to keeping the story going.
On re-reading, the above may not be all that clear...if needed I can expand on it later.
Do we constrain ourselves to what is probable
We constrain ourselves to what our characters would most likely do with the knowledge they have.
or do we figure out how to make the improbable believable? Or at least plausible? I hope the latter. We author in coincidences, or re-write the backstory, or do whatever is necessary to tell the most compelling story we can think of.
What's to say the story isn't just as compelling, or even more so, without the artificially-induced coincidences? Maybe the old lady catches everyone in her trap; the story then becomes how to escape (see AD&D module A4 for a published example of one of these) - still a good story, only different and (and this is the key element) perhaps not as advantageous or friendly or easy for the characters...and by extension, their players.
Max loves to talk about "cheating" and how "adults" act and not "trusting" the players, but this can only come from a belief that all metagaming is about getting an unfair advantage. To beat the other players or the DM.
Unfortunately, my rather lengthy experience tells me that he's mostly got it right.
My default assumption is that players are going to try to tell a better story for everybody at the table. If they want their character to 'know' about something then I assume they are doing it to make the game more fun and I'm fine with it. They are "authoring in" something improbable but more interesting.
In an ideal world I'd get right behind this. But it's not an ideal world, and there's just too many people out there who subscribe to the maxim "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'".
=====================================================
AaronOfBarbaria said:
My overall feelings on the issue of role-playing and a character's intelligence score are this: the mechanics of the game do what they say they do, and nothing more. In the case of ability scores and how they affect role-playing, that would be by way of the text on page 14 of the PHB, where it says "Take your character's ability scores and race into account as you flesh out his or her appearance and personality." and then provides some examples with a lot of use of the word "might" and no usage of the word "must"
If someone's PC has intelligence 8 yet plays their personality as that of a quick-thinking genius then I'd say they've failed.
That said, intelligence is relatively easy to role-play. It's wisdom that always trips us up.
And my overall feelings about metagaming have, I feel, been as clearly explained throughout this thread as they can be... which I admit is disappointing considering how many folks still don't quite understand them.
I think I understand them reasonably well. I just happen to very much disagree with some of them.
This is why your chosen definition for the term "metagaming" is meaningless.
You've just decided that a particular bit of knowledge that the player has must influence that player's character's actions.
Because, like it or not, far too often that out-of-game knowledge *does* influence the PC's actions - the PC does something it otherwise would (almost) never do.
Problem is, people are jumping on that "almost" - the <0.1% chance that the PC would just happen to think that the kind old lady in the woods eats adventurers and small children for supper - and using it to justify all sorts of shenanigans just because the PC's player knows she ate the party's rogue last night. And that's wrong.
Lan-"on tonight's menu: ranger with a side of thief"-efan
