I had a very similar situation come up in my Call of Cthulhu campaign. Two players go up to the bedroom of the cultist priest, where he has his wife tied to the bed. One of the players ran the campaign with me before, and so he knows what is about to happen, -but he doesn´t say a word. Then as they free poor Angela, it turns out she is a vicious hungry ghoul, and all hell breaks loose.
Isn´t him pretending to not know anything about Angela being a ghoul a form of metagaming as well? In fact, the reason he joined the other player for this mission, was probably because he didn´t get to do it the previous time we ran this campaign. For the record, I was perfectly fine with this.
If you start off like that right out of the gate, then I think you miss the point a lot of us have been trying to make, and thats a shame. I think there's a lot to be learned from this thread, and I think you're missing out on that information.
There is no rule that forces the players to rely 100% on only the knowledge that their character has, and nothing else, unless that is a rule you agree on with your group. And I disagree completely that using your wits and/or knowledge as a player is not playing your character.
No offense, but I think this is the sort of arrogance that Iserith was referring to earlier. This stance that there are those who are experienced, and those that metagame. And thats simply not true.
You make the incorrect assumption that the only reason one might metagame, is to cheat. The truth of the matter is, it might not be the players that are metagaming. It might be the DM who is pointing his finger at his players, and deciding for them what their character does or does not know. Thats the problem I see here.
I always find your post interesting Immaculata, but you've got the wrong end of the wrong stick I on this one I feel and you have been uncharacteristically heavy handed about it - but to answer each point in turn;
I haven't missed any points, valid or otherwise - stating that a bunch of them are smoke and mirrors arguments doesn't mean I don't understand anything. Quite the opposite I would say.
"There is no rule..." is a commonly used preface to excuses as to why it's ok to break Wheaton's Law. It is entirely axiomatic that a character is played knowing only what
they know, and if player knowledge is something that the player wants the character to have, they need GM agreement - whether through a roll against an appropriate skill or a narrative vehicle for where the character might feasibly have picked it up. One does not assume that one's character knows about fire and trolls regeneration, that has to come in-game, or if 'general knowledge' in the gameworld - stated by the GM in advance, or, more usually, agreed after the out-of-character question is asked by the player to the GM. Metagaming here would be proceeding without that agreement. Using you wits as a player is fine, but using your personal knowledge is ridiculous - otherwise we could all legitimately have our characters know the weakness of every monster that exists and how to invent gunpowder right off the bat. Does that sound stupid - sure it does - but there isn't an 'ok' amount of metagaming, and even if you thought there was, where could you draw the line fairly? The whole idea of there being some amount of metagaming that works, but beyond which is 'too much' falls down if taken to it's logical conclusion.
There is no arrogance in being self-assured, and I do not in fact state what you have claimed. I said if you CANNOT play without metagaming then you need help, and if you CHOOSE to do so, then you are everything else I said. Both new players and experienced ones can claim not to be able to help it but metagame, and I've seen both new and experienced players choose to do so. I never claimed there was the neat split you stated, nor would I.
Lastly - I made no such assumption - I quite clearly said sometimes people metagame by accident. It's when this continues and is clearly not a mistake but a habit that it's a problem. I don't understand the point about the GM's role... The GM knows the world, the characters and their backgrounds, he/she is the arbiter of what is within bounds on a range of issues, both rules-wise and campaign-wise. How the GM ISN'T the person who decides what a character can reasonably know is beyond me - if it isn't them, are you really suggesting it is the player and the GM has no say in it... how would THAT work in practice? You haven't thought that one through...
Characters are a group of stats and background narratives, bonds, flaws, ideals, alignment, abilities, skills etc. If a player rolls against a knowledge based skill it's the GM who decides based on the roll how much information the player gets as their character's knowledge. It is the GM who decides how much the characters know about trollslaying, vampire hunting or Thay politics BEFORE they encounter it in-game,
unless it was in their background. For the player to assume they know all the powers of a Mind Flayer, or which spell is most effective against the saves of a Demon when their character had no way of knowing it beforehand is flat out metagame cheating. The way to get that knowledge legitimately in-game is to research, talk to the right NPCs or for the character to find out themselves, not to be 'given' the edge they need out of nowhere by the player and forcing the GM to intercede or accept it, and letting the challenge in the game turn into a faceroll.
