D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[Bawylie]

You almost had me convinced. AND THEN YOU WENT TOO FAR!

Vegans are the paladins and the gnomes of REAL LIFE. There is a place for them ... far, far away from me, and far far away from my Castle of Bacon.

Ha!

You feel me?!?


-Brad

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I just don't think calling out one-true-wayism makes for a particularly effective counter-argument.

In my case, I don't intend the labeling of something as one-true-wayism as being a counter-argument so much as it is an explanation as to why I'm not offering a counter-argument.

Because I view statements of one-true-wayism as not being arguments, so there is no possible counter-argument to them.

For example, somebody that says "A character tending to the campfire will have his weapon at hand", is not making an argument that this should be the case, they are stating that it is the case and have not provided any room for a counter-argument that suggests why it shouldn't be the case - so I say "that's one-true-wayism" to explain why I'm not saying "That's not true" and getting into the whole "Yes it is." and "No it isn't" repeated exchange, or worse, having whatever position I present that suggests contrary information scoffed at and labelled as being so off-base as to be an indication that, just as an example, "your PC should probably retire."

 

[Guest 6801328]

In my case, I don't intend the labeling of something as one-true-wayism as being a counter-argument so much as it is an explanation as to why I'm not offering a counter-argument.

Because I view statements of one-true-wayism as not being arguments, so there is no possible counter-argument to them.

For example, somebody that says "A character tending to the campfire will have his weapon at hand", is not making an argument that this should be the case, they are stating that it is the case and have not provided any room for a counter-argument that suggests why it shouldn't be the case - so I say "that's one-true-wayism" to explain why I'm not saying "That's not true" and getting into the whole "Yes it is." and "No it isn't" repeated exchange, or worse, having whatever position I present that suggests contrary information scoffed at and labelled as being so off-base as to be an indication that, just as an example, "your PC should probably retire."

Agree with this also.

So maybe instead of accusing others of OneTrueWayism(tm) we should simply point out when somebody is presenting an absolutist argument.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bawylie]

In my case, I don't intend the labeling of something as one-true-wayism as being a counter-argument so much as it is an explanation as to why I'm not offering a counter-argument.

Because I view statements of one-true-wayism as not being arguments, so there is no possible counter-argument to them.

For example, somebody that says "A character tending to the campfire will have his weapon at hand", is not making an argument that this should be the case, they are stating that it is the case and have not provided any room for a counter-argument that suggests why it shouldn't be the case - so I say "that's one-true-wayism" to explain why I'm not saying "That's not true" and getting into the whole "Yes it is." and "No it isn't" repeated exchange, or worse, having whatever position I present that suggests contrary information scoffed at and labelled as being so off-base as to be an indication that, just as an example, "your PC should probably retire."

Look, you can argue how you like of course.

But reading a OTW counter doesn't sound any better or more credible or more persuasive than "yes it is/no it's not."

It sounds, to me, like waffle. Same with "play style." I want to commit myself to better discussions. I'd love it if you joined me in that. I won't hold it against you if you'd prefer to keep on keeping on.


-Brad

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So maybe instead of accusing others of OneTrueWayism(tm) we should simply point out when somebody is presenting an absolutist argument.

I don't mind calling a mallard a duck if that makes it easier for someone to understand what I mean, so I can get behind this.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

... but that isn't one-true-wayism, is it? That's just a difference of opinion.

I see no difference between someone telling me I am doing something wrong if I'm not optimizing (your "you have to optimize" example) and someone telling me I'm doing something wrong if I play my character as not having their weapon at hand while tending a fire (my "A character tending to the campfire will have his weapon at hand" example).

If you do see a functional difference between the two, I'd love to have you point it out to me. However, if we are talking about a matter of degree - the difference between "you have to" being explicit, and the implied lack of other options - I'm going to have to say that I don't think "it could be worse" is a valid means by which to determine something isn't itself bad.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But reading a OTW counter doesn't sound any better or more credible or more persuasive than "yes it is/no it's not."

It sounds, to me, like waffle.

You make a solid point.

I want to commit myself to better discussions. I'd love it if you joined me in that.

I'm in.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bawylie]

I see no difference between someone telling me I am doing something wrong if I'm not optimizing (your "you have to optimize" example) and someone telling me I'm doing something wrong if I play my character as not having their weapon at hand while tending a fire (my "A character tending to the campfire will have his weapon at hand" example).

If you do see a functional difference between the two, I'd love to have you point it out to me. However, if we are talking about a matter of degree - the difference between "you have to" being explicit, and the implied lack of other options - I'm going to have to say that I don't think "it could be worse" is a valid means by which to determine something isn't itself bad.

K cool. So [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned upthread that you might be standing around or whatever and then skeletons attack. And your favored weapon is a long sword. So he'd question why you'd abandon your favored weapon for like a club or a log from a campfire or whatever.

I'm paraphrasing.

But this gets to that question of optimizing. Presuming your character is well trained in longsword, they know the purpose of the weapon is to chop meat and draw blood. Sever muscles. Whatever. The character confronted with skeletons sees that there is no meat to cleave nor blood to draw. And understanding this, doesn't try his blade against the skeletons. He figures instead on using similar fighting techniques but with an implement that can break bones and won't knick an edge or whatever. Flaming log it is.

Now we can argue that's a contrivance, but it seems to me that a character trained in longsword would know when it is not optimal to use that weapon. Much like your plumber knows his wrenches probably won't help him too much at dentistry.

So what's optimal? What's in-character? These are situational. And it's too easy to cry "metagaming" and let slip the dogs of banhammer. Why might it be better to pick up a flimsy flaming log? Because you're pretty sure rock crushes scissors.


-Brad