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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6234703" data-attributes="member: 92511">I don't know that I completely agree...that meta-game knowledge should be left out or leaving it out is intrinsically "D&D".There are times even in/with [or I suppose I could just say "within"] the abstraction where the player and character knowledge coalesces. The mage "knows" she has almost expended all of her power [the player knows they have 1 or 2 spells left]. Can she get that last spell off and save the day (or just save herself?) or does the player have her run away? Why? Maybe she doesn't possess a spell that can help. The character and player both know this. Maybe the character is a coward or self-important/selfish. The player and the character both know this. The fighter, wiping the blood from his brow, grasps his sword with the last of his vigor and pushes forward with his last breath [the player knows he has 2 HP left, but is looking to be the hero and/or go down in a "blaze of glory" with his last attack]. The player and the character both know/think/want/would act like this. I don't know that meta-game knowledge is mutually exclusive to character knowledge.In the case of players ripping apart abstraction to gain something the character would have no way of knowing? Yes, I absolutely agree. But I don't know that a blanket "no metagaming" rule by the DM can really do [or should do] that or that it is something that D&D was automatically designed to do. Some things are known or, at least, "understood/have a feeling about" by both the players and their characters.</blockquote>

Verification