Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6208587" data-attributes="member: 58416">All I can really do in response to this is to try giving an example.  As a player, I have a very good grasp of tactics when it comes to combat.  That is due to having a military background in a combat arms MOS, and due to having used those skills in action.  Likewise, one of my big interests is historical warfare and tactics.  When it comes to that sort of thing, I would dare say I'm rather skilled.  In contrast, one of the characters I currently play has very little in the way of experience when it comes to combat.  In fact, the character started the campaign as an escaped slave who had never even gone on an adventure.  There have been times when his (the character's) decision making progress was very different from what mine would have been given the same situation.  A big reason for that difference is because of my view that the character would not have some of the knowledge available to him which is available to me; as such, there were things I did not think about or consider when viewing the game world from his point of view.I do recognize that I'm possibly an outlier when it comes to being able to do that.  All I can say is that I've never had a problem separating myself from the mind of a character when I've really wanted to.  It's not something I always do, but it's certainly something I can do.  I've done it both as a player playing a PC, and as a GM playing the part of a NPC.As far as your Forest Gump example, sure that happens.  However, how easily that can happen might depend upon the system.  There are systems which have mechanics to prevent a player from choosing actions opposed by the mentality of their character.  In such a system, I might choose a disadvantage such as Honesty during character creation which makes it difficult for me to lie.  In that same hypothetical game, there may come a time when I want to lie to the town guard about something my adventuring companions are doing; depending on the severity of the lie, I may be required to make some sort of roll to overcome my character's usual personality.  I do not believe metagaming proves much of anything about mental  character skills being different.  It's just as possible for me to metagame my  character's physical skills.  For example, I know that in D&D 4E I  can survive falls which would likely kill me (or at least cripple me) in  real life.  As such, the metagame informs me that I am willing to take  physical risks that I otherwise wouldn't in a different system or in  reality.  As such, those are times when metagame information has changed how I used physical skills.  To answer your question, I do suspect many people  would be tempted to use knowledge they have.  However, it's very easy  for a GM to work around that by simply changing parts of an adventure;  even trivial changes can lead to a world of woe for someone who relies  too heavily on metagame information.  Now, I would agree that it is difficult for a GM to enforce mental stats and skills on a player.  It is difficult because such things are not strictly measured in the same way a physical score measures encumbrance thresholds and things of that nature.  However, I do not believe it is impossible.  One of the ways I believe it is very possible is by training your players to expect that relying too heavily on metagaming can lead to bad consequences.  A second way is by doing what many game systems do; that is to reward roleplaying rather than encounter solving.  There are systems which reward roleplaying with character points and character advancement rather than strictly equating success with XP.</blockquote>

Verification