D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Sure, you can ask, but you're more likely to get it if you don't label it one-true-wayism (IMO). Because then you end up arguing about the label- and I would note that even while I am sympathetic to your claim, I disagree with the label.

But I am not the label police. So do what works for you.

I have found that honey usually works better than vinegar. But others have a different approach.

Nice! Claiming to use honey, rather than vinegar, while also splashing around the implication that I'm being intentionally vinegary if I point out why I think someone is communicating poorly. 10/10 - would give exasperated sigh again.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nice! Claiming to use honey, rather than vinegar, while also splashing around the implication that I'm being intentionally vinegary if I point out why I think someone is communicating poorly. 10/10 - would give exasperated sigh again.

I have noticed that some posters believe that pedantry/condescension delivered in a reasonable-sounding way is not pedantry/condescension.

(That's why I always try to deliver my pedantry and condescension with liberal doses of bile and scorn.)

 

[Corwin]

I have noticed that some posters believe that pedantry/condescension delivered in a reasonable-sounding way is not pedantry/condescension.

(That's why I always try to deliver my pedantry and condescension with liberal doses of bile and scorn.)

We so get each other.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I have noticed that some posters believe that pedantry/condescension delivered in a reasonable-sounding way is not pedantry/condescension.

(That's why I always try to deliver my pedantry and condescension with liberal doses of bile and scorn.)

I think, for me, what is frustrating is that I am genuinely giving as much benefit of doubt as I can to posters. I assume they didn't actually mean to state their opinion as fact... at least until I point out they've done so, and as a result are likely to be misinterpreted, and then they react like I'm the one doing something wrong by reading the words they wrote rather than adding words of my own choice before determining the meaning of the statement.

Just like I assume someone is interested in discussion... at least until I ask a serious question that will help me understand their point of view and they choose to respond, not provide an answer to that question, and add in something that really doesn't serve a purpose in the discussion unless it is intended to be a jab at me as a person.

 

[Shasarak]

God save me from a game where every action my character takes has to be the most likely one, as determined by (apparently) everybody but me, and my only job is to describe it in first person with a cheesy accent.

I could not think of anything worse then someone else telling me that I have to play my character as a dumbass just to help their immersion.

 

[Bawylie]

Because otherwise one could evade being convicted of OneTrueWayism by simply never making a general statement. Right?

I agree about the opinion vs. facts thing, too. One thing that irks me is when somebody states something as a fact, in a way that is dismissive/pedantic, and then when you call them out for it they say, "Well OF COURSE that's just my opinion."

This discussion involves both opinions and facts (or claims to facts, anyway), and the consistent contributors to this thread have all demonstrated competence with the English language. It's easy enough to express a thought as an opinion, so I will interpret apparent statements of fact as just that.

I am guilty of this.


-Brad

 

[Shasarak]

K cool. So [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned upthread that you might be standing around or whatever and then skeletons attack. And your favored weapon is a long sword. So he'd question why you'd abandon your favored weapon for like a club or a log from a campfire or whatever.

I'm paraphrasing.

But this gets to that question of optimizing. Presuming your character is well trained in longsword, they know the purpose of the weapon is to chop meat and draw blood. Sever muscles. Whatever. The character confronted with skeletons sees that there is no meat to cleave nor blood to draw. And understanding this, doesn't try his blade against the skeletons. He figures instead on using similar fighting techniques but with an implement that can break bones and won't knick an edge or whatever. Flaming log it is.

Now we can argue that's a contrivance, but it seems to me that a character trained in longsword would know when it is not optimal to use that weapon. Much like your plumber knows his wrenches probably won't help him too much at dentistry.

So what's optimal? What's in-character? These are situational. And it's too easy to cry "metagaming" and let slip the dogs of banhammer. Why might it be better to pick up a flimsy flaming log? Because you're pretty sure rock crushes scissors.


-Brad

It occurred to me that there is another type of player that will only ever attack with his longsword. They specialise in Longsword, they take feats to improve their longsword, they look out for magical longswords, they give their longsword a name and talk with their longsword and then, of course, they try and solve every problem with their longsword.

Is this type of player any better or worse then one that changes their attack to fit the situation?

 

[Shasarak]

I have found that honey usually works better than vinegar. But others have a different approach.

How are you supposed to get the honey if you dont use the stick? What am I supposed to be, a Bee Whisperer?

 

[iserith]

It occurred to me that there is another type of player that will only ever attack with his longsword. They specialise in Longsword, they take feats to improve their longsword, they look out for magical longswords, they give their longsword a name and talk with their longsword and then, of course, they try and solve every problem with their longsword.[

Reminds me of my fighter, Biff Longsword, except he's enamored with a battleaxe.

 

[Bawylie]

It occurred to me that there is another type of player that will only ever attack with his longsword. They specialise in Longsword, they take feats to improve their longsword, they look out for magical longswords, they give their longsword a name and talk with their longsword and then, of course, they try and solve every problem with their longsword.

Is this type of player any better or worse then one that changes their attack to fit the situation?

I dunno. Neither? Just different I guess.

I have a favorite gun and a favorite car. I still can't take my corvette out for groceries. And my favorite gun is utterly useless when making toaster waffles. So personally, im the type to switch up and use the best available tool for the job but idk.

Otoh
I always liked the scene in assassins creed 2 where ezio meets a guy named Bartolommeo. Bart rushes through his ransacked home screaming for Bianca, whose wellbeing he is worried about. Turns out Bianca is his great sword. Good scene.


-Brad