Search results

One of my major issues with The Forge is that games are not Simulationist or Gamist or Narrativist. I have yet to see an RPG that isn't all three to varying degrees. What you will see when you play a game is that his game over here is 60%(N), 30%(S) and 10%(G), while that one over there is...

And that's objective fact. :P

False Equivalences are false. Thinking about mechanics or not being in character 24/7 is not the same as metagaming.

It's an actuality, not a technicality. If there is restricted federal land, it doesn't matter if you are a federal employee allowed onto it, it's still restricted federal land. Metagaming doesn't cease to be metagaming just because you are allowed to do it and/or don't care about it.

The 1e PHB, DMG and MM.

Just because metagaming is incorporated into the rules and guidance of those games, and you are okay with it happening, doesn't make it not metagaming. It's just sanctioned metagaming that nobody in your group cares about.

In your haste to mock me, which you like to do fairly often, you flubbed it. This is what you said... "First is you stop caring about the “metagame”. There’s just the game. Second, you telegraph danger ahead of time. Or at the very least, you establish what the likely risk is, the stakes of...

The "" around metagaming and the declaration that there is only the game is a statement that metagming doesn't exist. It's okay if you want to ignore metagaming, but it does exist. I was just correcting the obvious error there.

That's a different statement than "didn't give me what I wanted." It's moving the goalposts, though it's more accurate to what I know about you from prior interactions. You didn't mean to imply that you disliked prior editions, but the way you wrote it did imply that.

It actually does imply that, even though I know from prior interactions that you didn't dislike all previous versions of D&D. If you say that 4e finally gave you what you wanted from D&D, that means that the prior editions didn't give you what you wanted. Most people dislike things that fail...

It's interesting how many different ways the game was played back then. None of the games I was in would have done those things. I remember one game where we were attacked by trolls at night and my character who had no knowledge of trolls ended up without a weapon due to a fumble chart...

So?

Metagaming exists and is antithetical to the kind of game that I enjoy playing and running.

Metagaming is something used at many gamist tables. Not all gamist tables would use it, but I've seen it mentioned here as acceptable many times.

First you say to drop it, and it's not derogatory terminology by the way, then you proceed to tell me(wrongly) again that I said it would be wrong to place the cook there. Do you want to drop it or continue it, because continuing to falsely accuse me of saying it's bad wrong fun to do it in a...

And if the narrative is the priority, you might arrive at a third.

But you will never be right since one involves the DM and the other the player(s) which makes a difference in whether it's quantum for the players or not. Those are differences. And you clearly did not read my forest encounter, despite my posting it multiple times, since it not only did it not...

There's wrong stuff here. Gamist =/= mechanics. Gamist = treating the game as a game. For example, the player knowing and using weaknesses, AC, etc. for monsters the PC would have no way of knowing about. Mechanics exist in games of all types, not just gamist ones. Simulationist =/=...

Context. That was in the context of being the DM. Quantum is not relevant to me, because I'm not the one encountering the monster. Quantum doesn't apply to players, because players in a traditional game don't encounter quantum unless you have a DM engaging in illusionism or something. A...