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: 7887525" data-attributes="member: 2525">Pretty sure it's not OK to me, and that my opinion remains my opinion. If you find it OK, cool. But you being OK with it doesn't change my opinion, and you don't even seem to be trying to change opinions as you didn't even give a reason why you're OK with it.Sorry you want a clean debate where you can push the "I win" button by defining metagaming in a way which makes it super clean, but that's not the real world. People DO think metagaming means "Your character acts on information that you as a player have, but that your character does not." Even if you don't like it, that's what people mean when they talk about that term. Which means you're going to have to deal with that mud. That's where most conversations take place - where there are edge cases worth debating.I don't denounce ALL metagaming. I said earlier we can talk about if there is good, bad, and neutral metagaming, and we can talk about DM blame, player blame, or nobody being to blame. I am not the one trying to make an absolutist statement that there is only one type of metagaming and it's also always the DMs fault and anything which falls outside that simultaneously narrow and fuzzy definition simply "doesn't count" as metagaming.I will give you another example - a player acts on information about an adventure they read here, but they genuinely simply forgot to tell the DM. They meant to, but they forgot. So it's not bad faith - but it's definitely not what they were supposed to do as they knew they were supposed to tell the DM they read that information so the DM could change things are adapt to the player having knowledge the characters don't have. Still the DMs fault?</blockquote>

Verification