Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7625233" data-attributes="member: 16814">Then, by all means, explore it.&nbsp; It's fine to drop by and say that there's a lot of territory, but that's a bit easy.&nbsp; Are you advocating for an encounter where, say, half the players pretending they know you use fire against trolls and the other half doesn't, and this makes the pretending have impact between 'no' and 'I, as GM, built my encounter based on players pretending they don't know about trolls and fire?'&nbsp; I'm curious as to where in my premises you actually have a dispute, or is it just rhetoric about rhetoric?Let's be frank.&nbsp; Most people that complain about metagaming are talking about players using knowledge of monster mechanics to secure success in encounters, to which my complaint stands fully on it's own and I disagree there's any middle ground.&nbsp; If, however, you're talking about something else, then I may moderate depending on your points.&nbsp; I can see an argument for acting on information given only to one players, but, again, those situations can usually be engineered such that the information flow isn't that way.&nbsp; Most of the pain points that are usually sited in metagaming discussions are easily alleviated by altering the crux of the situation to not depend on pretending you don't know information.&nbsp; And, as the GM has exclusive authority over the scene framing (in D&amp;D, at least), then this kind of problem rests on the GM's shoulders.&nbsp; Either the GM is engaging in thought policing his players for unapproved knowledge leaks or they just build scenes and encounters that do not rely on such knowledge being pretended away.&nbsp; If you build situations such that they require the players to pretend to not have knowledge they do have, then that's on you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7625233, member: 16814"] Then, by all means, explore it. It's fine to drop by and say that there's a lot of territory, but that's a bit easy. Are you advocating for an encounter where, say, half the players pretending they know you use fire against trolls and the other half doesn't, and this makes the pretending have impact between 'no' and 'I, as GM, built my encounter based on players pretending they don't know about trolls and fire?' I'm curious as to where in my premises you actually have a dispute, or is it just rhetoric about rhetoric? Let's be frank. Most people that complain about metagaming are talking about players using knowledge of monster mechanics to secure success in encounters, to which my complaint stands fully on it's own and I disagree there's any middle ground. If, however, you're talking about something else, then I may moderate depending on your points. I can see an argument for acting on information given only to one players, but, again, those situations can usually be engineered such that the information flow isn't that way. Most of the pain points that are usually sited in metagaming discussions are easily alleviated by altering the crux of the situation to not depend on pretending you don't know information. And, as the GM has exclusive authority over the scene framing (in D&D, at least), then this kind of problem rests on the GM's shoulders. Either the GM is engaging in thought policing his players for unapproved knowledge leaks or they just build scenes and encounters that do not rely on such knowledge being pretended away. If you build situations such that they require the players to pretend to not have knowledge they do have, then that's on you. [/QUOTE]

Verification