Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 9048409" data-attributes="member: 97077">If it's true, then I would say there's a strong correlation between that and people who also don't want to adopt techniques to mitigate against opportunities for &quot;metagaming.&quot; Sure, sometimes you'll see people try to roll dice for the players to avoid it, but when we suggest something like &quot;ask them to say what they're doing and how on all action declaration before you go to adjudication&quot; there's resistance. Why? It removes the &quot;metagaming&quot; they say they don't like which may arise when the DM has to go clarify their action after the fact.The DM is the one creating the opportunities though. Why do people seem to do that if they dislike &quot;metagaming&quot; so much? It very much seems like a test of the player to me, a way to reinforce the group's identity of &quot;Not Metagamers&quot; in some sense.It reminds me of a conversation with my dad and grandmother some time ago. They were lamenting about how much people swear in TV shows and movies nowadays. So I said, well, the good news is that at a certain point those words will lose their impact and might not even be seen as swear words anymore. They seemed dissatsified with this. I asked, if you don't like swear words, wouldn't it be better if there were no swear words anymore? The answer was &quot;No.&quot; So it's like, they wanted swear words to exist, just nobody should use them. I see what looks to me like the same kind of thinking in these &quot;metagaming&quot; tangents all the time: &quot;Here's a way to mitigate 'metagaming'.&quot; &quot;Hell no, I'm not doing that.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 9048409, member: 97077"] If it's true, then I would say there's a strong correlation between that and people who also don't want to adopt techniques to mitigate against opportunities for "metagaming." Sure, sometimes you'll see people try to roll dice for the players to avoid it, but when we suggest something like "ask them to say what they're doing and how on all action declaration before you go to adjudication" there's resistance. Why? It removes the "metagaming" they say they don't like which may arise when the DM has to go clarify their action after the fact. The DM is the one creating the opportunities though. Why do people seem to do that if they dislike "metagaming" so much? It very much seems like a test of the player to me, a way to reinforce the group's identity of "Not Metagamers" in some sense. It reminds me of a conversation with my dad and grandmother some time ago. They were lamenting about how much people swear in TV shows and movies nowadays. So I said, well, the good news is that at a certain point those words will lose their impact and might not even be seen as swear words anymore. They seemed dissatsified with this. I asked, if you don't like swear words, wouldn't it be better if there [I]were no swear words anymore?[/I] The answer was "No." So it's like, they wanted swear words to [I]exist[/I], just nobody should [I]use [/I]them. I see what looks to me like the same kind of thinking in these "metagaming" tangents all the time: "Here's a way to mitigate 'metagaming'." "Hell no, I'm not doing that." [/QUOTE]

Verification