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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7887413" data-attributes="member: 2525">What you just said does not mesh well with your prior comment as far as I can tell:You said previously the players tell the DM that their path is the PC's desire rather than based on Player knowledge, and then make it clear you're talking about them fibbing and it's obviously Player knowledge they're simply restating as PC knowledge. And now you're calling that same kind of behavior not metagaming but bad faith play which is somehow different from metagaming.Pick a position. I was originally taking your word for it when the players said it was what their PCs would do they meant that and not what the Player's would do given the knowledge the PC doesn't have. But your response at least implies they were BSing. How is that meaningfully different than what you're now calling "bad faith play"?To me, metagaming is when "Your character acts on information that you as a player have, but that your character does not." <a href="https://youtu.be/1IyWfaMmhrM?t=465" target="_blank">And that definition received overwhelming support in the poll Matt Colville took on the topic</a>. So you can call bad faith a subset of metagaming, but I don't see how it's completely separate from it. It's information the player got from reading the module in advance of the game. The player is using that information to have his character act on that information which the character does not have. Pretty clearly metagaming, whether you want to add "bad faith metagaming" as a descriptor or not.</blockquote>

Verification