Out-of-character/metagame knowledge
Another way of looking at it is this: if you want to reduce or eliminate that form of metagaming, you adopt an approach to setting and situation that doesn't require "taking a hook".
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
First, that's not metagaming: trained warriors would be able to narrow down a sword's abilities through sparring, most of the time.
And no, item testing never gets annoying because a) it means you've got new items to test and b) it's part of the mystery.
aramis erak
Legend
I find it boring, even in real life, until the sparring begins.
Haiku Elvis
Knuckle-dusters, glass jaws and wooden hearts.
But doesn't not taking a hook because they know it's a hook and true roleplaers would refuse it mean that by refusing the hook due to OOC knowledge they are still metagaming?
Ahh, it's a paradox, kill it, kill it, make it die!
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
So that means that refusing to use fire on trolls, because you think your character wouldn’t know about it, is metagaming. Hmmmm.But doesn't not taking a hook because they know it's a hook and true roleplaers would refuse it mean that by refusing the hook due to OOC knowledge they are still metagaming?
By definition, it's not. But it shows that there are levels of metagaming. The first level is "metagaming as required to keep the game flowing". This includes players knowing what their actual modifiers are, knowing monster AC's, and not turning a troll encounter into a TPK because no one knows how to kill a troll. This kind of metagaming is rarely bad.
The second level I'd call "incidental metagaming". This is when a player acts like their character lives in the game world, and will spout out facts that are known by many, even if it was never established that the character knows these things. Saying you know about the War Wizards of Cormyr, Bladesingers, or Hobgoblins, for example. This kind of metagaming is not often bad.
The third level is "restricted metagaming": here, the player is taking knowledge that is only known to a privileged few and using it or acting upon it. Knowing that the phylactery of a lich is his massive golden throne, or that the Princess is secretly a Silver Dragon. This kind of metagaming is often bad.
And finally, we have "terminal metagaming". This is where you've read the adventure or the DM's notes, or took something the DM told you in confidence and bring it into game. Once, my roommate used my computer when I was at work, and saw a lot of word docs on my desktop. Curious, he read them, and they were stories about my campaign's lore.
When he mentioned them to the other players, I was not happy. Terminal metagaming is almost always bad, but it doesn't have to be- it's annoying, and a breach of trust, to be sure, and there should be a discussion about it. Where it crosses the line is when the player uses this information to their benefit, like knowing to search a certain area to find a magical intelligent sunblade (I'm sure some of you know what adventure I'm referring to).
The second level I'd call "incidental metagaming". This is when a player acts like their character lives in the game world, and will spout out facts that are known by many, even if it was never established that the character knows these things. Saying you know about the War Wizards of Cormyr, Bladesingers, or Hobgoblins, for example. This kind of metagaming is not often bad.
The third level is "restricted metagaming": here, the player is taking knowledge that is only known to a privileged few and using it or acting upon it. Knowing that the phylactery of a lich is his massive golden throne, or that the Princess is secretly a Silver Dragon. This kind of metagaming is often bad.
And finally, we have "terminal metagaming". This is where you've read the adventure or the DM's notes, or took something the DM told you in confidence and bring it into game. Once, my roommate used my computer when I was at work, and saw a lot of word docs on my desktop. Curious, he read them, and they were stories about my campaign's lore.
When he mentioned them to the other players, I was not happy. Terminal metagaming is almost always bad, but it doesn't have to be- it's annoying, and a breach of trust, to be sure, and there should be a discussion about it. Where it crosses the line is when the player uses this information to their benefit, like knowing to search a certain area to find a magical intelligent sunblade (I'm sure some of you know what adventure I'm referring to).
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I like that you qualify in each case: rarely, often, etc.
There are some who seem to think it’s more black and white than that.
Maybe it’s safe to say “playing in good faith is always good. Being a jerk is always bad.”
Oh absolutely. "Don't be a jerk" should be a rule of the game. Alas, nobody wants to come out and say that in any rulebook, and instead we get half-hearted diatribes about the different kinds of players and how to deal with problem players.
And if you think metagaming is black and white, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, that's your belief. I don't agree with it, because I think this is a more nuanced topic, but as long as your belief leads you and others you game with to have fun, in the end, I'm just some idiot with too much free time on the internet. : )
And if you think metagaming is black and white, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, that's your belief. I don't agree with it, because I think this is a more nuanced topic, but as long as your belief leads you and others you game with to have fun, in the end, I'm just some idiot with too much free time on the internet. : )
Similar Threads
