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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jaelommiss" data-source="post: 6755424" data-attributes="member: 6775925">I could agree with this (and for the record I disagree entirely with your argument as presented in this thread and others) if, and only if, there was an in character reason for this sudden change in behaviour. If a character is established to trust another character's assessment of potential threats, has done so dozens of times over with no second guesses, and has never had reason to doubt the accuracy of their assessments (thinking a dragon is a harmless lizard or some other major mistake that calls the character's capabilities into question), then I am left wondering why the character would decide to change that arbitrarily. When significant doubt can be cast on a character's consistency AND there is an extremely strong reason for that course of action that the player is aware of out of character, then it is perfectly accurate to call that metagaming. In the same way, if a sorcerer starts every fight with Chomatic Orb (cold) and has done for the past five levels, then I am going to question the use of Chromatic Orb (fire) when facing trolls if no previous knowledge has been established to support this action. Sure a character could know about trolls, but since a character does not exist beyond what has been shared in game and approved in their backstory by the DM, the character is assumed not to know unless established before the situation arises. In cases where this has not occurred then it is fair to ask the DM if you would know and, with approval, roll the appropriate knowledge check. Personally, I believe that in the troll situation the DM should describe what the characters see rather than naming exactly what they are facing. If the challenge is in the identification of a creature rather than its abilities then there is significantly less chance of metagaming (which does exist).One of my favourite ways to identify metagamers is to change a crucial detail about what I believe is being metagamed. Since nothing is set in stone until established by the DM, I enjoy changing trolls' vulnerability to lightning instead of fire and giving them resistance to fire. Players who assume that fire will save them without bothering to ask if they would know the vulnerability (that is, players who metagame) often tend to get upset when they blow their biggest resource for little effect. When they start their objection with "but the book says" they are clearly identifying the books as the cause for their actions rather than the character.Without fail, that player will then start asking about how things work in the game. If they have a decent justification I will frequently just give them the information. For myself and my table it has worked out very well.</blockquote>

Verification