Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KenNYC" data-source="post: 7538664" data-attributes="member: 6791261">I don't think I ever said I was for or against your character not knowing something you know.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you are playing and you run into a puzzle set on a chess table, then by all means, you should be trying to solve the puzzle hopefully and not intentionally playing poorly because your character &quot;doesn't know chess&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is metagaming only to the extent that the player is meta but by role playing this to the extreme&nbsp; and for all intents and purposes &quot;being&quot; your character (trying to solve the puzzle yourself even though you personally are not the one solving the puzzle)&nbsp; you have momentarily immersed yourself in the narrative with no rules in sight.Then there is another way:&nbsp; You see a chess table puzzle and you say &quot;my character has an INT of 18, can I make a knowledge check to see what I might know about this?&quot;.&nbsp; Or the DM invites you to make the knowledge check.&nbsp;&nbsp; Rules in, roleplay out.I was DMing an encounter a few months back and the party was up against a pretty tough customer.&nbsp;&nbsp; Did they&nbsp; discuss the events in the narrative, or did they discuss the fact that if player A withdraws the creature will get an attack of opportunity but the player withdrawing has a high armor class, wasting his reaction when Player B does something that only a reaction could mitigate (it was such gibberish I might have my terms wrong).&nbsp;&nbsp; Just take a guess which discussion I had the pleasure of listening to.&nbsp;&nbsp; Rules, not roleplaying; metagaming to actually remove you from the narrative and instead boil it down to a math problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KenNYC, post: 7538664, member: 6791261"] I don't think I ever said I was for or against your character not knowing something you know. If you are playing and you run into a puzzle set on a chess table, then by all means, you should be trying to solve the puzzle hopefully and not intentionally playing poorly because your character "doesn't know chess". This is metagaming only to the extent that the player is meta but by role playing this to the extreme and for all intents and purposes "being" your character (trying to solve the puzzle yourself even though you personally are not the one solving the puzzle) you have momentarily immersed yourself in the narrative with no rules in sight. Then there is another way: You see a chess table puzzle and you say "my character has an INT of 18, can I make a knowledge check to see what I might know about this?". Or the DM invites you to make the knowledge check. Rules in, roleplay out. I was DMing an encounter a few months back and the party was up against a pretty tough customer. Did they discuss the events in the narrative, or did they discuss the fact that if player A withdraws the creature will get an attack of opportunity but the player withdrawing has a high armor class, wasting his reaction when Player B does something that only a reaction could mitigate (it was such gibberish I might have my terms wrong). Just take a guess which discussion I had the pleasure of listening to. Rules, not roleplaying; metagaming to actually remove you from the narrative and instead boil it down to a math problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification