JohnSnow
Hero
But to me, metagaming is precisely what it is when the player decides to ignore the obvious reality that lava causes people to burst into flames, because he knows that lava does 20d6 damage and his character has 200 hit points.
That's basing a character decision on "player knowledge" of the game mechanic relationship between the number of hit points the character has and the damage dice of lava.
Now, if the character had fallen into lava before and survived (or witnessed others doing the same), then the character would have a reasonable basis for the decision. Without that experience, the player is metagaming. I really have a hard time understanding how you can interpret it any other way.
The falling mechanic is a little different. I can accept that if Bob the fighter fell 100 feet and survived, he might have a reasonable expectation of doing so in the future. But again, if the player starts comparing "damage codes," he's metagaming.
Does the character know that "a sword does 1d8 damage (+ bonuses)?" No. He knows that when he was a novice fighter, a single thrust from a sword could kill him, but that now he's much better at turning aside those thrusts. The character is most assuredly NOT aware that he has "58 hit points," or whatever, because he doesn't know what a "hit point" is. The player does.
And if the player makes decisions for the character based on comparing "damage codes" that the character doesn't know about, the player is metagaming. The character knows that a greatsword can inflict more damage than a longsword, or that an arrow is less likely to hit a vital target than a rapier, but is far more lethal when it does. The character knows all of this, but terms like 1d6, 2d6, 18-20 x2, x3 and the rest of the game statistics don't mean anything to him. A wizard isn't aware that his 4d6 fireball has the same "damage code" as a critical hit from a greatsword, or a sneak attack by a 5th-level rogue wielding a short sword or rapier.
Using that knowledge is using knowledge of relative game statistics to make decisions. I honestly don't understand how you can say that is NOT metagaming.
As you can tell from the passage I quoted, "preposterous" and "unreasonable" aren't terms I made up. They were in the 1e DMG under the discussion of what hit points represent. I think if we're going to discuss what hit points are supposed to represent in D&D, it's germain to quote what D&D's creator had to say on the subject. And frankly, I think calling it "ridiculous" (which I feel it is) is less inflammatory than what was said in the DMG. To anyone who thinks D&D characters are heroic, but still human, suggesting that they can sustain the same amount of real physical injury as several full grown elephants IS ridiculous (i.e. just not reasonable). That's how I view D&D characters - amazingly skilled, blessed, resilient and lucky, but still human for all of that. And I approach the discussion from that basis.
However, I concede that what is "self-evident" to one person might be regarded as an insult by someone who views the characters differently. However, would you agree that the notion that a normal human could be pierced by 20 arrows and survive is "unreasonable," "preposterous," and "ridiculous?"
I concede you may not agree that high-level D&D characters are "normal humans," but if that's the case, we've gone around in circles because we come at the discussion from totally different viewpoints.
I'm willing to accept that a character can sustain more physical damage than a normal human, but my SoD on the ability to sustain real physical injury breaks down before we get to 30 hit points. However, the game still works for me because I see hit points as a narrative abstraction that covers a lot more than just one's ability to sustain physical harm.
Moving on to keep this on topic (S-B-T)...
If the majority feels the tactic needs to be nerfed or removed entirely, then it should. There's no reason the game should contain anything that the vast majority of its player base changes. "It was in 3e" is a bad reason to keep something in the game. But more importantly, the question is: does this tactic make the game more fun for the majority of gamers?
Based on what I've heard, I'd guess the answer to the last question is "no." I think most people would rather see it removed, just like they'd like to see the 15-minute adventuring day problem gotten rid of. However, if it works for someone's game, they can houserule it "in" as easy as those "lazy, limited, and narrowminded" DMs can houserule it "out."
And if most groups would rather not have to deal with it, then that's how it should be handled. However, I admit I might be wrong on whether people would rather see it removed or left in. And if the majority wants it kept, I have no problem houseruling it out.
That does beg an interesting question though. With 4e stripping out the ability to "go nova" in a single encounter, has it become less of a "no-brainer" strategy than it was before? If the advantage is minor, I imagine the tactic won't get used much.
That's basing a character decision on "player knowledge" of the game mechanic relationship between the number of hit points the character has and the damage dice of lava.
Now, if the character had fallen into lava before and survived (or witnessed others doing the same), then the character would have a reasonable basis for the decision. Without that experience, the player is metagaming. I really have a hard time understanding how you can interpret it any other way.
The falling mechanic is a little different. I can accept that if Bob the fighter fell 100 feet and survived, he might have a reasonable expectation of doing so in the future. But again, if the player starts comparing "damage codes," he's metagaming.
Does the character know that "a sword does 1d8 damage (+ bonuses)?" No. He knows that when he was a novice fighter, a single thrust from a sword could kill him, but that now he's much better at turning aside those thrusts. The character is most assuredly NOT aware that he has "58 hit points," or whatever, because he doesn't know what a "hit point" is. The player does.
And if the player makes decisions for the character based on comparing "damage codes" that the character doesn't know about, the player is metagaming. The character knows that a greatsword can inflict more damage than a longsword, or that an arrow is less likely to hit a vital target than a rapier, but is far more lethal when it does. The character knows all of this, but terms like 1d6, 2d6, 18-20 x2, x3 and the rest of the game statistics don't mean anything to him. A wizard isn't aware that his 4d6 fireball has the same "damage code" as a critical hit from a greatsword, or a sneak attack by a 5th-level rogue wielding a short sword or rapier.
Using that knowledge is using knowledge of relative game statistics to make decisions. I honestly don't understand how you can say that is NOT metagaming.
As you can tell from the passage I quoted, "preposterous" and "unreasonable" aren't terms I made up. They were in the 1e DMG under the discussion of what hit points represent. I think if we're going to discuss what hit points are supposed to represent in D&D, it's germain to quote what D&D's creator had to say on the subject. And frankly, I think calling it "ridiculous" (which I feel it is) is less inflammatory than what was said in the DMG. To anyone who thinks D&D characters are heroic, but still human, suggesting that they can sustain the same amount of real physical injury as several full grown elephants IS ridiculous (i.e. just not reasonable). That's how I view D&D characters - amazingly skilled, blessed, resilient and lucky, but still human for all of that. And I approach the discussion from that basis.
However, I concede that what is "self-evident" to one person might be regarded as an insult by someone who views the characters differently. However, would you agree that the notion that a normal human could be pierced by 20 arrows and survive is "unreasonable," "preposterous," and "ridiculous?"
I concede you may not agree that high-level D&D characters are "normal humans," but if that's the case, we've gone around in circles because we come at the discussion from totally different viewpoints.
I'm willing to accept that a character can sustain more physical damage than a normal human, but my SoD on the ability to sustain real physical injury breaks down before we get to 30 hit points. However, the game still works for me because I see hit points as a narrative abstraction that covers a lot more than just one's ability to sustain physical harm.
Moving on to keep this on topic (S-B-T)...
Kamikaze Midget said:
If the majority feels the tactic needs to be nerfed or removed entirely, then it should. There's no reason the game should contain anything that the vast majority of its player base changes. "It was in 3e" is a bad reason to keep something in the game. But more importantly, the question is: does this tactic make the game more fun for the majority of gamers?
Based on what I've heard, I'd guess the answer to the last question is "no." I think most people would rather see it removed, just like they'd like to see the 15-minute adventuring day problem gotten rid of. However, if it works for someone's game, they can houserule it "in" as easy as those "lazy, limited, and narrowminded" DMs can houserule it "out."
And if most groups would rather not have to deal with it, then that's how it should be handled. However, I admit I might be wrong on whether people would rather see it removed or left in. And if the majority wants it kept, I have no problem houseruling it out.
That does beg an interesting question though. With 4e stripping out the ability to "go nova" in a single encounter, has it become less of a "no-brainer" strategy than it was before? If the advantage is minor, I imagine the tactic won't get used much.
Last edited:
}
