Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6157356" data-attributes="member: 6696971">People focus on motive when it comes to metagaming regularly with respect to roleplay (eg is the person in Pawn Stance and just treating their PC as disposal or as a means to trivialize challenges with no regard for the fiction or is the person in Author Stance and trying to compose a coherent narrative/backstory with respect to character actions).  There are all kinds of motives to metagaming and there are various consequences stemming from these motives.  What is important is "does the outcome of this metagaming enrich the overall play experience of the table or compromise it?"  Put another way, does it comport with the genre conceits/logic, spotlight sharing, and challenge expectations (authenticity, type, difficulty level, etc) that the players and the GM are hoping for/working towards?  If those things are accomplished by the metagame mechanic (not only not compromised but perpetuated), does an examination of the underlying motive of a singular metagame action (eg an accepted complication, or even an invoked one, for an advantage/asset later) or a portfolio of them matter?I think gross metagaming that makes a mockery of the genre conceits/logic and/or the spotlight sharing and/or the challenge expectations is problematic and is either a system blind-spot/hole or a player problem.  If it creates bad fiction (spinning bowties and clown shoes in a grim game) or makes for a genuinely bad time for a player at the table, then you have a problem.  But I think you can safely compartmentalize the two scenarios away from one another.</blockquote>

Verification