metagaming

[ExploderWizard]

Well as far as making saving throws and other rolls. Me and our other DM's have been in the practice of making passive rolls for the playera already anyway. And we also make dummy rolls to throw em off. But my issue is with the situational effects that are unlikely to go off because the enemy isn't stupid enough to trigger them. Alot of these can be explained within the context of the game. I guess the fighters mark was a bad example in that sense. The enemy knows he's been challenged and the negative effects are pseudo-morale based for not meeting that challenge. But there are other effects that I think the enemy shouldn't be aware of, at least until they're triggered. Or maybe some other way of getting that metagame knowledge in-game. Like a spellcraft check or something, depending on the type of effect. I just think that having a rule that states that all creatures, automatically know everything about what is effecting them is too big of a catch-all. It doesn't allow for those surprises.

I don't have a problem from with concealing effects from the players provided they are not affected directly. If an NPC spellcaster puts up a globe of invulnerability there is no need to announce this fact. If a player asks and has the required skills then there is a chance of finding out. If not then they will figure it out as events unfold perhaps.

 

[Danceofmasks]

People draw lines in different places.
I've seen players (yes, plural, over the years) deciding to fireball a fire-breathing mob just 'cos it would be "metagaming" to know it won't take any (or much) damage.
See, that's just an action unworthy of an int score of 8.

 

[Leatherhead]

But how about riposte strike. That would be a GREAT 'gotcha' power, except that the enemy would be stupid to trigger it since he knows what would happen. Hellish Rebuke is another one that SHOULD be a surprise IMO. I could name more, but I think those are 2 excellent examples...

Riposte Strike is more of a "Don't hit me" power.

An example of a "gotcha" power is the Rangers Disruptive Strike.

 

[Mirtek]

Consider past editions. Someone knew when a spell was cast on them. If they were unaware then no save could be made.

Actually in 3.x you only knew that you just had to make a save, you didn't know against what you just saved and who did cast it

 

[WalterKovacs]

One thing about the video game comparison.

In a video game they have the concept of "aggro" where the bad guys go after the defender ... because the defender did what is necessary to draw aggro.

In 4e, the bad guys either attack the person that marked them, because they KNOW what will happen if they don't ... however, it MAY be worth their while to take the damage, take the -2 penalty to their attack role, and smack that rogue, because he might be able to take out the little bugger doing rediculous ammounts of damage.

It gives the defenders a way to control the monsters without it being ACTUAL control ... instead making their decisions more difficult.

 

[Tripgnosis]

I guess I just have to adjust my perspective a bit. This particular mechanic DOES only apply to creatures when they're already affected by something. So interrupts and other effects can still be a surprise. And I guess simply having that sense that A will lead to B isn't exactly metagaming and can be explained even just by instinct. I just had to look at it differently, so thank you for your perspectives

And I hate that I actually made the video-game comparison. I mean I think in the context I put it in that it was a valid comparison, but the notion that 4e has been turned into a video game on paper has annoyed the hell outta me. But that's a subject for another thread...

Like this one ---> http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/241950-videogame-comparison.html