Search results

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 if I explain the personality and attitude of my character and how that means he...

Do you mean between the two examples Max made up that I was quoting? Or are you just saying that people would recognize my two examples as different examples of metagaming? Because if you are saying people would recognize either of my examples as "metagaming", you'll have to give me a fully...

I think I may be confused. Are you saying that you see no difference between my two examples of role-playing, or that you see no difference besides "filler words" (which I am interpreting as words added that do not significantly impact the meaning of the sentence) between your examples and...

The size of the difference doesn't matter, Max. What does matter, though, is if the examples above are different from my re-phrasing of them below, and if so, how. Player: I think my character would be suspicious of this woman, but he's not one to jump to conclusions, so he approaches and says...

What does class have to do with it?

Whenever you do that, please note that others will not realize you are talking about a pattern the single instance might be a part of unless you are actually specific that you are talking about a pattern. There is a huge difference between, for example, saying that it isn't okay for a player to...

That brings up another problem I keep having with this conversations. I keep thinking that because a single incident is being mentioned in singular language that we are talking about a single instance - or rather, multiple examples that are each a single incident. ...and then people act like...

I can't say with absolute certainty because I've not been given enough details on either the mechanics of the situation, nor the story of it. This could be a seriously bad situation that forces me to weigh the consequences of choosing between staying and probably dying, or fleeing and definitely...

In my opinion, the players should play their characters however they feel their character would act in the situation. Me knowing the players know what happened to the rogue has no bearing on what the characters know, so if the characters are just doing things they could do with what knowledge...

If you aren't saying that you also don't ever lock the doors to your house or car, then your analogy isn't at all accurate - because iserith isn't saying he thinks you should be out there hunting down and punishing people that metagame because you don't like it, he's saying he doesn't get why...

My answer is similar to your own. I'm always interested in the players taking part in making up the details of the campaigns we play (it shows, and sometimes creates, more buy-in to the game), so I'd likely ask for player input on the names even if they were doing as I like them to do and...

Likely because of not proceeding past the "seems odd" initial hypothesis to the testing phase where attack rolls actually get compared to ACs of these "strong monsters in the air", and 20d6 damage (average 70) gets compared to HP totals, and all the other practical details (like how many of the...

I went through the same thing, but with the added downside of the thing that prompted the change being that I noticed one player that wasn't just fishing for his own bonus experience, but was upset enough by an instance of not getting it that he then stopped someone else getting their bonus. To...

Not always. In my group, and I believe in iserith's as well, the line is very clear because it is drawn in such a way that the player is allowed to arbitrate whatever their character knows from whatever information it is possible that their character might know - including that should the DM...

The phrase, when not being used in the way 5th edition uses it, refers to tiers of potency that character classes were ranked into by character-optimization-minded folks. Tier 1 being the highest and most potent tier.

Not just that, but it becomes unclear where the line is for what the player does get to arbitrate about what their character knows and what they don't. I can't decide what my character knows about trolls - do I get to decide what my character knows about elves? Should I roll dice to see if my...

I get where you are coming from, as I'm not a fan of the general idea of a spell that lasts 24 hours. But this specific case, I'm absolutely in love with that it lasts 24 hours because of what that means for what I need to do as a DM in order to facilitate prolonged underwater adventuring. In...

I would say "What Darkness said", but I feel like elaborating because I'm not ready to trundle off to bed just yet... so here goes: In most games (both meaning systems and campaigns/stories) I prefer to keep all the characters at the same point of progression. Not for any real reason beyond a...

Because, firstly, having "no in-game evidence" is usually a case of the DM deciding that it is uncertain that the evidence be noticed or be certainly unnoticed, when neither of those make sense. With the case of water, putting whether or not someone realizes there is water present somewhere...

I'm clearly not. I'm not making a strawman - I'm considering the idea that there is literally no evidence a character might have that gives them reason, or literally no reason to do a thing without certain evidence, to be the strawman, and ignoring it.