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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Juiblex" data-source="post: 447796" data-attributes="member: 2998">Kestrel wrote this email to another group he plays in, but I DM him in another group and he CCed me on this email. In my game I brought up the subject of metagaming when I noticed the game was becoming more a wargame than dungeons and dragons. I almost considered implementing a rule my friend Orcus uses - you tell someone else what to do, the entire party is henceforth unable to do that action. Instead, I decided that I would voice my concern and brought the issue up. Fortunately I have a great group of players and the issue resolved itself without having to resort to the "O rule."As for the subject of metagaming, it is hard on one level to limit actions to what the PCs knows and what the player knows. A perfect example would be if I set up an entire dungeon with Dwarven Forge ahead of time, revealing it to all players. The players thereafter immediately take a right after entering and go to a corner and say, we search here - where a secret door is set up leading to the treasure trove. My point is there is always going to be outside input a player knows or recognizes because of similar prior encounters - but this input shouldn't be known by the PC. I think it is hard to act on limited knowledge, but that makes a great roleplayer.As far as PCs having prior knowledge of a monsters weakness, if someone says they are going to use fire on a troll - I ask for them to explain to me on the spot how the PC would know that -or- sometimes I have them make a wilderness lore/knowledge (arcana)(if appropriate) check. If the explanation is viable, I allow the action. If it isn't, they cannot use fire.</blockquote>

Verification