Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 5232668" data-attributes="member: 467">I think you are describing two very different kinds of metagaming. In the first example, the player *thinks* he knows what's going to happen -- even if only generally -- and is acting on that expectation. In addition, that expectation and curiosity can kind of be transferred to the mind of the PC: after all, we are presumably talking about a character that goes into deep dark holes full of doom for fun and profit, who has seen a chain or lever or two and who has experienced the result. The second example is different. He's acting on specific information that he shouldn't have. Using "player knowledge" isn't metagaming -- it is in effect cheating. If the player simply had a "hunch" it'd be different, but even observing notes going back and forth between the fighter's player and the DM is player knowledge.It's also important to remember, I think, that metagaming and player knowledge and the like are tools we use at the table to create atmosphere and make the game more enjoyable. The chain thing is fun simply because we -- people who play the game -- know that pulling chains can lead to grisly doom. The DM random rolling dice behind the screen and pretending to consult his notes is fun because we -- those who play the game -- know that sometimes random die rolls result in grisly doom (and the hands of some wandering monster, frex). We can think of the search-for-traps roll behind the screen and the DM's evil smirk as he says "You don't find any traps" as the tension building soundtrack to the game, where sweat beads on the borw of the hero as he decides to cut the red wire.</blockquote>

Verification