A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Bedrockgames]

I have not suggested, nor even remotely hinted, that the RQ text is insincere. .

I never intended to suggest that you did say or think this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t regard it as cheating. But regarding it as cheating is a thing, no matter how many crossbows you bring up. Obviously a crossbow is not secret info. Burning trolls by fire is more obviously a secret. This is painfully common. And it isn’t hard to understand. You guys are using clever arguments to obscure his point (a point I don’t even really agree with but think makes sense).

I don't have a hard time understanding Max's reasons for considering metagaming cheating. I simply disagree, and in the example of the troll and uncle (and therefore similar game situations where a player is involved in deciding what hi character does or does not know), I don't see how it can be considered metagaming. My character knows about trolls because of his uncle.

If that is not allowed in a game because the DM decides that it's metagaming, then that's something I would disagree with, and so that is what I'm challenging. It's not metagaming, and if it's categorized as such, then I think that's a case of the DM resorting to Mother May I.

To put it another way: there are two options to pick from, described below. In both cases, the players know about troll vulnerabilities. Which would you prefer?

- The characters encounter trolls. The players go through the encounter playing their characters as if they do not know about trolls and fire. They continue until they get to some point where they can "justify" the use of fire, and then they finish off the trolls.

- The characters encounter trolls. One player has his character say "These things look like Trolls! My Uncle Elmo told me the only way to be sure they're dead is to burn them!" and the players immediately deploy fire based attacks, and they finish off the trolls.

The first one may be fun for some....who am I to question or judge anyone's idea of fun? But what it doesn't do is prevent metagaming. In my opinion, it makes the entire encounter revolve around metagaming.....because the players spend much of their time wondering "when can I use fire? When can I bring my out of game knowledge to bear by justifying it in the fiction?" They go through all kinds of hoops to justify the use, and we can never actually know if the answer is truly sufficient because there is no actual mystery to preserve. No one is actually surprised by the revelation. There's no learning happening.

The second option just gets on with things. It's kind of like a band-aid. The first option is where you peel it slowly in an attempt to mitigate the sting, but really all you're doing is drawing it out.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Some RPG rulebooks discourage players from debating rules with the GM. The RQ book I quoted does not. Some say that the GM's word is always final. The RQ text I quoted says that the GM should expect to yield from time to time.

The rulebook just says that they should discuss things. But it also says the GMs word is final. I don't disagree that rulebooks say different things. I don't know why we are debating this point though as the relevant one is the section at the start of the text that strongly suggests discouragement of metagaming (again in the sense Maxperson is talking about). I realize you are trying to make this about all kinds of metagaming under the son in order to win the discussion. but that isn't really what Maxperson had in mind when this conversation started (and it isn't typically what people have in mind when they draw lines around metagaming).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't have a hard time understanding Max's reasons for considering metagaming cheating. I simply disagree, and in the example of the troll and uncle (and therefore similar game situations where a player is involved in deciding what hi character does or does not know), I don't see how it can be considered metagaming. My character knows about trolls because of his uncle.

I think it is pretty clear having knowledge that is in the Monster Manual, no matter what explanation you provide, would generally be considered metagaming. I understand what you are arguing. But honestly, in just about every group I've been in, the way that would be handled, unless the system had something in it prioritizing player backgrounds and letting them impact this, you would be expected to say to the GM something like "Hey can I know about troll weaknesses because of my uncle?". If the GM thinks you are just fabricating the uncle for that purpose, he or she may say no. If it is established and makes sense, the GM might say yes. I think however troll fire is clearly secret information player characters are not expected to start out with (and keep in mind a lot of gamers, particularly OSR gamers, avoid giving characters extensive histories for this reason and have an approach of your background really begins day 1 of the campaign).

By the way, I don't really agree with him either. I just think, if he is running a campaign, and he wants to consider this cheating, that is totally fair and logical (and not hard at all to understand as player). I would have no trouble operating under this restriction.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I

If that is not allowed in a game because the DM decides that it's metagaming, then that's something I would disagree with, and so that is what I'm challenging. It's not metagaming, and if it's categorized as such, then I think that's a case of the DM resorting to Mother May I.

How is this not metagaming? I just think this is like basic metagaming that everybody would pretty much agree is metagaming. Again, it might vary by system. But if I were in a group and the GM said okay, you guys can't metagame stuff like knowing how to kill trolls. I'd say 'fair enough'. And if someone went to the mat like people are here, I'd regard them as being disruptive. I mean, it is a fairly minor requirement. If you can't enjoy the game because of it, I think you may be an overly rigid player.

By the same token though, I'd expect max person as a player in my group to understand if it doesn't bother us that players can know how to kill trolls because they already have that information in real life.

 

[Lanefan]

... the example of the troll and uncle ...

The "a-ha!" moment just hit: the PC's uncle was a troll.....

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't have a hard time understanding Max's reasons for considering metagaming cheating. I simply disagree, and in the example of the troll and uncle (and therefore similar game situations where a player is involved in deciding what hi character does or does not know), I don't see how it can be considered metagaming. My character knows about trolls because of his uncle.

If that is not allowed in a game because the DM decides that it's metagaming, then that's something I would disagree with, and so that is what I'm challenging. It's not metagaming, and if it's categorized as such, then I think that's a case of the DM resorting to Mother May I.

To put it another way: there are two options to pick from, described below. In both cases, the players know about troll vulnerabilities. Which would you prefer?

- The characters encounter trolls. The players go through the encounter playing their characters as if they do not know about trolls and fire. They continue until they get to some point where they can "justify" the use of fire, and then they finish off the trolls.

- The characters encounter trolls. One player has his character say "These things look like Trolls! My Uncle Elmo told me the only way to be sure they're dead is to burn them!" and the players immediately deploy fire based attacks, and they finish off the trolls.

The first one may be fun for some....who am I to question or judge anyone's idea of fun? But what it doesn't do is prevent metagaming. In my opinion, it makes the entire encounter revolve around metagaming.....because the players spend much of their time wondering "when can I use fire? When can I bring my out of game knowledge to bear by justifying it in the fiction?" They go through all kinds of hoops to justify the use, and we can never actually know if the answer is truly sufficient because there is no actual mystery to preserve. No one is actually surprised by the revelation. There's no learning happening.

The second option just gets on with things. It's kind of like a band-aid. The first option is where you peel it slowly in an attempt to mitigate the sting, but really all you're doing is drawing it out.

Yep, this. There's metagaming in both situations, but play suffers worse in one than the other. To avoid the implied rhetorical, it's the former where the play suffers.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it is pretty clear having knowledge that is in the Monster Manual, no matter what explanation you provide, would generally be considered metagaming. I understand what you are arguing. But honestly, in just about every group I've been in, the way that would be handled, unless the system had something in it prioritizing player backgrounds and letting them impact this, you would be expected to say to the GM something like "Hey can I know about troll weaknesses because of my uncle?". If the GM thinks you are just fabricating the uncle for that purpose, he or she may say no. If it is established and makes sense, the GM might say yes. I think however troll fire is clearly secret information player characters are not expected to start out with (and keep in mind a lot of gamers, particularly OSR gamers, avoid giving characters extensive histories for this reason and have an approach of your background really begins day 1 of the campaign).

By the way, I don't really agree with him either. I just think, if he is running a campaign, and he wants to consider this cheating, that is totally fair and logical (and not hard at all to understand as player). I would have no trouble operating under this restriction.

I would prefer a game where such a restriction was not in place. Could I handle such a restriction? Yes. But do I think it's a meaningful restriction based on sound logic? Not really.

I play with the same group of friends I've always played with (for the most part), so we've periodically addressed concerns like these and decided what's best for the group. So I wouldn't have to worry about this in my home game; we'd talk it out, and work toward something everyone could agree with. But if I was joining a public game, or an online game, where there are plenty of potential games to join.....I'd probably pass a game with such restrictions up in favor of one that didn't have them.

Regarding trolls and fire....to me, once players know, the cat is pretty much out of the bag. I don't see the advantage of enforcing this ruling....I don't see what it adds to the game. Unless everyone likes the idea of pretending to discover a secret they already know.

How is this not metagaming? I just think this is like basic metagaming that everybody would pretty much agree is metagaming. Again, it might vary by system. But if I were in a group and the GM said okay, you guys can't metagame stuff like knowing how to kill trolls. I'd say 'fair enough'. And if someone went to the mat like people are here, I'd regard them as being disruptive. I mean, it is a fairly minor requirement. If you can't enjoy the game because of it, I think you may be an overly rigid player.

By the same token though, I'd expect max person as a player in my group to understand if it doesn't bother us that players can know how to kill trolls because they already have that information in real life.

What if the DM said to the player of the fighter "You recognize these creatures as trolls. Your Uncle Elmo said he faced them in the Temple of Elemental Evil, and that they must be burned to be destroyed." Is this metagaming?

If not, then it's not the actual Uncle Elmo solution that's the problem....it's just the source of that solution. If it comes from the DM, it's okay. If it comes from the player, then it's not.

And that's the issue, and is why I brought this tangent up in the first place. Because it relates to the question of Mother May I. "May I use fire now?"

 

[hawkeyefan]

And the player would also be aware of the choice and could play to it if desired.

Never played it, but I hear Call of Cthulhu has a similar inevitability to it.

Yeah, for the most part. There are plenty of games that have similar arcs. The zero to hero arc you describe is pretty particular to level progression games such as D&D. But I think the idea of a "hero" has enough flexibility to it to work in a variety of games. I tend to think of it in the literary sense of "protagonist" rather than the concept of someone who performs heroic deeds.

And because it's a long-standing group I know exactly what I have: one player in particular who will push for any in-fiction advantage he can get (though at times they all will to some extent); and other players who will be resentful should this squeaky-wheeling get someone any extra grease.

My means of shutting some of this down is to make backgrounds (other than the most basic ones) random.

Well, every table has its own needs, so you do what you got to. My players aren't working to eek out every advantage possible so much as they want to have interesting things happen in the game.

Even when a book's still being written the author almost certainly has some clue as to what makes each significant character tick and a bare-bones idea about its background. As Aragorn has come up as an example I'll use him: at what point did JRRT decide Aragorn would be a hidden king? (my guess is it came pretty early on, before pen was seriously put to paper)

No idea, really. Who knows how many versions of the story he went through, or if he wrote it in chronological sequence or what. Either way, I'm sure there were some things that surprised even Tolkein during the writing.

And I think that's part of the disconnect here. You seem to want the players to get as close to being the actual characters as possible, from a mental standpoint. Think like them, act like them, and so on. I kind of view it as being an observer and also a writer.....like I get to watch and enjoy a show that I'm also helping to write. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] had a recent post about this that I think explained it really well.

The sense I'm getting from some in here is that yes, it always has to be approved if the system allows it.

Well, it depends on the system, right? In D&D, I don't think there are existing rules for allowing such on the fly content creation, so if people wanted this in their game, they'd have to kind of homebrew it, or port it from other systems and tweak accordingly.

But in other games, it's just part of the assumed mode of play. If that's the case, then yes, it should always be allowed, right?

How could this be so is only one of the questions that will arise, however, and probably the easiest to answer.

Much harder if not impossible to answer is the question "What would have happened differently in the fiction had this been known all along, at least by that PC's player and the DM?"; and that's always the very first question that leaps to my mind. And the problem is that if anything would or even might have happened differently in the fiction then what actually did happen has just been rendered invalid, along with everything since that might have been affected by this initial difference (an in-fiction butterfly effect, as it were). Put another way, it retroactively causes those sessions to have been largely a waste of everyone's time at the table; wich I think we can all agree is hardly a desirable outcome.

Well, I meant that there would indeed be many questions, all summarized by "how could this be so".

But I think there is nothing harder and certainly not impossible about what has already happened. The answer is that everything that happened still happened. Nothing changes. You just work to understand how it could have happened that way. Why did no one recognize the secret noble? Why didn't he use his status to get them out of that jam? And so on. If you answer these questions, then there's no need to retcon a retinue that's been traveling with the party all along. That would be absurd.

Instead of changing the fiction, this simply sheds new light on the fiction.

All of these can be done provided a) the answer to a preceding question "WHY is this being revealed now?" passes muster (e.g. it's not being done just to gain some immediate advantage either in the fiction or at the table) and b) there's no obvious place where knowledge of this by either the PC's player or DM would or could have had any impact on what has gone before in the played fiction.

Get past those - which ain't easy - and yes, then we're into exactly the questions you ask here. But it's point b) where most such things will run aground, unless the campaign has only just started.

As a GM it sure wouldn't excite me if I didn't know about it ahead of time as now I have to stop and think about any point b) headaches this is going to cause.

As a player the excitement comes from having made the decision back at char-gen and then roleplaying keeping it secret (I've done this numerous times - played a character with some hidden but very significant thing to it e.g. a hidden class); but the GM would always be in on it. There'd be no excitement in just coming up with it on the spur of the moment and dropping it in like a bombshell - unless my goal is to be an asshat and disrupt things.

I don't think it's fair to assume that people are doing this to be an asshat. Maybe this would be frustrating to you as a DM....okay, that's fine. But are you not able to understand how other players and DMs may actually enjoy this kind of emergent fiction? That they don't think it's a headache, but instead is a source for inspiration to propel the story forward or maybe in some new direction?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I didn't compare them. I used your logic and applied it to a similar situation. If the DM is a jerk for ignoring group A's desire to avoid pretending not to know about weaknesses, then he is also a jerk if he ignores group B's desire not to be surprised by monster weaknesses and strengths. If the DM should allow group A to use player knowledge to kill trolls and such, then he should also give out all unknown strength and weakness information to group B.

But that's not what I'm saying. The DM doesn't have to provide the characters with knowledge that their players don't have in such a case. So if there's a new monster with weaknesses the players have no idea about, then unless the thing is meant to be something that the characters may have knowledge of in which case the DM could share it or could call for a roll, I'd play it out as is. This is the ideal situation in a case where you want such monster vulnerabilities to be secret knowledge and to matter to the encounter as such....both players and characters are ignorant of the info. Why would I change that?

It's the case where the players know that I think this judgment applies.....let their characters know, too, because in the grand scheme it does nothing for the game to block that knowledge. Especially since the characters could conceivably know.

I'll ask you the question I asked Bedrockgames:
What if the DM said to the player of the fighter "You recognize these creatures as trolls. Your Uncle Elmo said he faced them in the Temple of Elemental Evil, and that they must be burned to be destroyed." Is this metagaming?

It's more player dependent than DM dependent. They come up with the ideas on how to find out the knowledge. The DM just establishes the odds of success or failure as fairly as he can.

I don't know if I'd say it's more player dependent. The players may come up with the ideas, but the DM has a huge say in if those ideas have a chance of succeeding, and what that chance may be. And obviously, has the ability to veto ideas outright, i.e. "No, your Uncle Elmo never told you about trolls".

So the player's idea is subject to DM review, and then if it passes that review, then subject to DM adjudication in the form of DC scores and the like.

Seems much more slanted toward the DM, no? If it was indeed player dependent, then you'd probably be more open to accepting the player's idea that he learned from his Uncle Elmo, no?