Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3027167" data-attributes="member: 20239">I'm going to answer both of you at once, since you're basically making the same points.The assumptions you are making are still, IMO, based on metagame thinking.  The idea that one person looking over a potentially trapped area and failing to see something isn't proof about the presence of a trap one way or the other.  Negative data can never disprove an hypothesis.  The only reason the Rogue's conclusion bears as much weight as it does in some people's mind is because their perception of the game environment is colored by the concepts of "taking 20" and "level appropriateness".  Those two metagame concepts turn negative data "I don't see a trap" into a positive conclusion "there is no trap".  The character's assumptions about the reality of their game world are being colored by the player's knowledge about how the rules of the game work and what the basic assumptions of the game are concerning challenges the characters will face.  That is, by any definition, metagame thinking.The idea that the Monk can likely survive if there is a trap is also, totally, metagame thinking.  No real person would voluntarily shoot themself in the head to determine if their gun were loaded with blanks or real bullets if other, safer, options (shoot at a target, shoot a dead animal carcass, shoot into a pillow, etc.) were available to determine the same information, even if they knew they would have a 3 in 4 chance of surviving the wound.  It's ridiculous to say that characters in a fantasy game would do the equivalent simply because the numbers are on their side and say it has nothing to do with the fact that the player is aware he is playing a game.And before we get off on too much of a tangent, I just want to re-emphasize that I have no problem with metagame thinking.  This is not a criticism of the "unfair" stance in this discussion.  I'm just pointing out that use of metagame knowledge applies to both sides of the issue.</blockquote>

Verification