DM question: how much do you incorporate PC backgrounds into the campaign?

[hawkeyefan]

You'd be surprised, how many people have in-grained their meta-gaming to such a level that they don't even realize they're doing it. As always, better awareness of our own cognitive processes can help.

Oh no, I'm quite aware how much I may metagame. I do it as a player at times, and by necessity, I do it as a GM even more.

That doesn't mean I'm not roleplaying, though.

 

[Panda-s1]

The die roll is fair (in the statistical sense of the term) and unbiased, just like real life. Doing things for dramatic purpose is imposing your own bias on what you want to happen, which is inherently unfair.

While statistically-improbable things do happen in the real world, they are exceedingly rare, and trying to incorporate them into our five-percent-granularity probability model would give disproportionate results. If I try to extrapolate events based solely on likely scenarios, and you try to extrapolate based on all theoretical possibilities; then your conclusion will take a lot of time and effort to reach, while my conclusion will be much more accurate in the vast majority of cases. From a statistical perspective, such events are not worth consideration.

wait hold up, how do you justify that all your adventurers are going to have an adventure you planned? how can you hold this up to a statistical model? do you roll to see if they know each other? or are even in the same place when the game begins? it seems exceedingly rare an entire party of adventurers just so happen to be together when an adventure is afoot.

why assume they're gonna go on this adventure? they might be in an entirely different part of the world when the evil bad guy starts putting his plans into motion. assuming that somehow all your players managed to be at the same place at the same time it should follow the game could be the party hanging around town doing the occasional oddjob only to find out the BBEG's army is on its way to destroy said town and there's nothing your lvl 1 party can do about it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Oh no, I'm quite aware how much I may metagame. I do it as a player at times, and by necessity, I do it as a GM even more.

That doesn't mean I'm not roleplaying, though.

By definition, meta-gaming is the opposite of role-playing. If you're making a decision that utilizes out-of-game factors, then you are necessarily not making that decision from an in-world perspective.

Meta-gaming is also explicitly against the rules of many RPGs, such as D&D 5E. If you meta-game while using those systems, then the designers have told you that you are doing it wrong. You're free to change those rules at your own table, of course, if you prefer story-telling over role-playing.

 

[FrozenNorth]

why assume they're gonna go on this adventure? they might be in an entirely different part of the world when the evil bad guy starts putting his plans into motion. assuming that somehow all your players managed to be at the same place at the same time it should follow the game could be the party hanging around town doing the occasional oddjob only to find out the BBEG's army is on its way to destroy said town and there's nothing your lvl 1 party can do about it.

Why are you even assuming there is a BBEG? Or an adventure?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

By definition, meta-gaming is the opposite of role-playing. If you're making a decision that utilizes out-of-game factors, then you are necessarily not making that decision from an in-world perspective.

Meta-gaming is also explicitly against the rules of many RPGs, such as D&D 5E. If you meta-game while using those systems, then the designers have told you that you are doing it wrong. You're free to change those rules at your own table, of course, if you prefer story-telling over role-playing.

AGAIN, I ask, where are you getting these definitions of roleplaying and metagaming???

 

[The Crimson Binome]

wait hold up, how do you justify that all your adventurers are going to have an adventure you planned? how can you hold this up to a statistical model? do you roll to see if they know each other? or are even in the same place when the game begins? it seems exceedingly rare an entire party of adventurers just so happen to be together when an adventure is afoot.

That's just part of the premise. There's no uncertainty involved, because it already happened. If a coin flip comes up heads fifty times in a row, then the likelihood that it has just done so is 100 percent.

Our model is only concerned with what happens after that point.

 

[Aldarc]

Barring outside real-life circumstances getting in the way (an equal-opportunity hazard), that's purely by choice of the people involved. Particularly the GM.

But if the GM sets it up to be open ended and the players choose to keep coming back then yes, you've got all the time in the world. Enjoy.
Again, barring external real-life circumstances it's a reality imposed only by one's own choices.

So apart from all the exceptions that disprove your thesis that you are trying to impose on gaming, it's true? Gotcha. Try not to let reality hit you on your way out.

It'd look better from here.

Why am I not surprised that you would want to join his "Everyone is doing badwrong-RP-fun" Club?

 

[hawkeyefan]

By definition, meta-gaming is the opposite of role-playing. If you're making a decision that utilizes out-of-game factors, then you are necessarily not making that decision from an in-world perspective.

That's not true. Role-playing doesn't require you to abandon all knowledge you possess beyond the role you are playing. And playing a role doesn't mean you can't make decisions based on things outside the role, it just means that there also needs to be a fictional reason for the decision.

So I can have my PC go on an adventure because that's the game and if I stay on the farm.....a perfectly reasonable and probably desirable choice for the character....then nothing fun happens.

There's no reason that metagaming and roleplaying need to be at odds.

Meta-gaming is also explicitly against the rules of many RPGs, such as D&D 5E. If you meta-game while using those systems, then the designers have told you that you are doing it wrong. You're free to change those rules at your own table, of course, if you prefer story-telling over role-playing.

Not really, no. I think that there's a bit in 5E about discouraging metagame thinking. But there's nothing that says it's "explicitly against the rules". Exactly what they are advising is open to interpretation. And there are plenty of roleplaying games where it's absolutely not against the rules, and may in fact be encouraged.

I'm sure that you'll say that "those games are storytelling games not roleplaying games" or some such, and that's where I will say that your opinion is poo.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Role-playing doesn't require you to abandon all knowledge you possess beyond the role you are playing.

That is literally a definition of role-playing: You abandon your own perspective, and instead think like the character.

And playing a role doesn't mean you can't make decisions based on things outside the role, it just means that there also needs to be a fictional reason for the decision.

If the real reason for making a decision is based on a factor that exists external to the game world, then that's meta-gaming rather than role-playing, and no amount of post-hoc rationalization will change that. If you were actually role-playing for that decision, then you would reach that conclusion without compromising the integrity of the process.

Sometimes, there are situations where meta-gaming is the lesser of two evils, but it's never good. It's always to the detriment of the role-playing process.

I'm sure that you'll say that "those games are storytelling games not roleplaying games" or some such, and that's where I will say that your opinion is poo.

You're free to not like the truth, or to find it distasteful, but that doesn't make it any less true.

If you disagree, then make some sort of logical argument to support your claim, rather than Appealing to Authority.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

That is literally a definition of role-playing: You abandon your own perspective, and instead think like the character.

If the real reason for making a decision is based on a factor that exists external to the game world, then that's meta-gaming rather than role-playing, and no amount of post-hoc rationalization will change that. If you were actually role-playing for that decision, then you would reach that conclusion without compromising the integrity of the process.

Sometimes, there are situations where meta-gaming is the lesser of two evils, but it's never good. It's always to the detriment of the role-playing process.

You're free to not like the truth, or to find it distasteful, but that doesn't make it any less true. If a game is played by meta-gaming, rather than role-playing, then it is not actually an RPG in any meaningful capacity. It's merely co-opted the label, for marketing purposes.

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE DEFINITIONS?????