Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 9048871" data-attributes="member: 97077">If you needed to know how they smash the vase because it wasn't clear in their action declaration, how would you approach that?It's only ever a possibility to begin with until confirmed. In this case, I don't imagine anyone, in this discussion anyway, has purposefully created a test of the player to see if they will &quot;metagame.&quot; But that is what it is, in effect, if not in design. It's a checkpoint in play: The DM presents an opportunity and incentive to &quot;metagame.&quot; The player is then expected to either make the case for why their character might know the thing (which is trivially justified by someone sufficiently motivated to use &quot;metagame knowledge&quot;) or, more commonly, ask the DM for permission, which breaks immersion while that is all hashed out. Wouldn't it be easier to just not create the opportunity and incentive in the first place? Then there's neither a chance to &quot;metagame&quot; nor a possibility of breaking immersion. If I were someone that cared about either of those things, I'd strongly consider that approach since it presumably aligns with my stated goals.And I agree &quot;that people play in the way they play - because that's how they want to play.&quot; But that doesn't take away from pointing out how their approaches to play might not really serve their stated goals.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 9048871, member: 97077"] If you needed to know [I]how [/I]they smash the vase because it wasn't clear in their action declaration, how would you approach that? It's only ever a possibility to begin with until confirmed. In this case, I don't imagine anyone, in this discussion anyway, has [I]purposefully [/I]created a test of the player to see if they will "metagame." But that is what it is, in effect, if not in design. It's a checkpoint in play: The DM presents an opportunity and incentive to "metagame." The player is then expected to either make the case for why their character might know the thing (which is trivially justified by someone sufficiently motivated to use "metagame knowledge") or, more commonly, ask the DM for permission, which breaks immersion while that is all hashed out. Wouldn't it be easier to just not create the opportunity and incentive in the first place? Then there's neither a chance to "metagame" nor a possibility of breaking immersion. If I were someone that cared about either of those things, I'd strongly consider that approach since it presumably aligns with my stated goals. And I agree "that people play in the way they play - because that's how they want to play." But that doesn't take away from pointing out how their approaches to play might not really serve their stated goals. [/QUOTE]

Verification