Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 9048430" data-attributes="member: 97077">The very techniques I'm describing remove those opportunities. If the expectation of the table is that a player is reasonably specific in their action declarations to include goal and approach, we get something like &quot;I smash the vase with my bare fist&quot; instead of &quot;I smash the vase.&quot; But for some, no doubt those extra 4 words which remove the opportunity for &quot;metagaming&quot; to arise is a bridge too far, a hoop through which they are unwilling to make players jump, a Rubicon that can never be crossed. They'd rather leave it open for the DM to assume or establish for the player what their character does and thinks, potentially creating conflict, or a space where the DM needs to ask clarifying questions which raises suspicion and incentivizes &quot;metagaming&quot; to occur. Does that make sense?The consequences for &quot;metagaming&quot; being?The freedom of choice to do what? Freedom for players to choose to &quot;metagame&quot; or not to &quot;metagame?&quot; What does that add to your game if you dislike &quot;metagaming?&quot; You increase the risk of it occuring to your game, and the need to police it, and judge or even punish players that do it. Wouldn't it be easier to mitigate against those opportunities in the first place with with as few as 4 extra words?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 9048430, member: 97077"] The very techniques I'm describing remove those opportunities. If the expectation of the table is that a player is reasonably specific in their action declarations to include goal and approach, we get something like "I smash the vase with my bare fist" instead of "I smash the vase." But for some, no doubt those extra 4 words which remove the opportunity for "metagaming" to arise is a bridge too far, a hoop through which they are unwilling to make players jump, a Rubicon that can never be crossed. They'd rather leave it open for the DM to assume or establish for the player what their character does and thinks, potentially creating conflict, or a space where the DM needs to ask clarifying questions which raises suspicion and incentivizes "metagaming" to occur. Does that make sense? The consequences for "metagaming" being? The freedom of choice to do what? Freedom for players to choose to "metagame" or not to "metagame?" What does that add to your game if you dislike "metagaming?" You increase the risk of it occuring to your game, and the need to police it, and judge or even punish players that do it. Wouldn't it be easier to mitigate against those opportunities in the first place with with as few as 4 extra words? [/QUOTE]

Verification