NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6205965" data-attributes="member: 17106">Ah, in your view. In my view, not so much. I'm defining "roleplaying" in a way that includes the player adopting the "role" of his character and acting from that character's perspective. That's playing the character (as opposed to simply playing the game).Like the original post I made that you're referring to, I am talking about fairly literal definitions. I find it hard to imagine that you've never met anyone in the roleplaying game hobby who has any interest in adopting the perspective of their character, though I find it easy to see why someone might feel unwelcome in trying to do that. I find a spread of some players who are very into that, some who don't care at all, and plenty who make some effort at it but aren't strict.One of the most basic examples of metagaming in a D&D context is the player being able to determine the DC of a check they're trying to make repeatedly. Happens with AC all the time; the players see that an attack roll of 29 missed and 30 hit, so they know the AC is 30. Then, being able to compare their statistics to the enemy's that start making tactical decisions (who attacks who, how much power attack to use, what extra boosts to use, etc.) based on their calculated odds of success. It's almost difficult not to think this way as a player.Now, thew character probably has an idea of how good he is at things and how hard things are, but probably not to that level of detail. So that's metagaming.The same thing can happen with skill checks. And Cha-based ones in particular. For example, if you know your Diplomacy check, you may be able to draw conclusions beyond what the character would be able to regarding the attitude of NPCs.To my mind, there are two main ways of dealing with these kinds of issues. One is to accept them and let them go. The other is to manipulate or deceive the players in some way so that it isn't so easy to discern things that they shouldn't know. Simply throwing in some circumstance modifiers they don't see, or describing the outcome in a way that obfuscates it (such as having an NPC change their attitude internally without revealing it in any obvious way) are simple and effective ways of doing it. Even better if you can find some rationale for doing so. Then the players are much closer to their characters' perspective, and the DM's vision is fulfilled better.That's what DMing and roleplaying are about.</blockquote>

Verification