Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8569886" data-attributes="member: 70468">I haven’t run Apocalypse World either, but I’ve used that technique in other games (started a fantasy campaign using Open Legend that way). It’s not a bad technique, but it’s not universal. The type of conflicts it generates tend to be personal, which might not be appropriate for a campaign where everyone expects a call to action to lead to a plot where the PCs have important parts to play.I think complete aversion to metagaming is pathological. Even if there are obvious mechanics at play (such as in your Traveler scenario), the players are arguably going through the same decision-making process their characters are: jobs don’t come often, there aren’t many patrons we know, etc. I think it would be better to accept that some metagaming is diegetic (and actually good) than to try to eliminate it completely.We had a situation in my campaign where this pathological aversion reared its head. Even though the campaign is about what the players want to do (see: my <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/campaign-structural-paradigms.685649/post-8527642" target="_blank">comment</a> in another thread on the structure I use), they got worried they were “metagaming” because they had found what they thought they were looking for, but they had not found the key yet. There were several keys that would open it, but they had a thief. He could also open it. They were worried that having the thief pick the lock was “metagaming”. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤦🏻‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f926-1f3fb-2642.png" title="Man facepalming: light skin tone&nbsp; &nbsp; :man_facepalming_tone1:" data-shortname=":man_facepalming_tone1:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8569886, member: 70468"] I haven’t run Apocalypse World either, but I’ve used that technique in other games (started a fantasy campaign using Open Legend that way). It’s not a bad technique, but it’s not universal. The type of conflicts it generates tend to be personal, which might not be appropriate for a campaign where everyone expects a call to action to lead to a plot where the PCs have important parts to play. I think complete aversion to metagaming is pathological. Even if there are obvious mechanics at play (such as in your Traveler scenario), the players are arguably going through the same decision-making process their characters are: jobs don’t come often, there aren’t many patrons we know, etc. I think it would be better to accept that some metagaming is diegetic (and actually good) than to try to eliminate it completely. We had a situation in my campaign where this pathological aversion reared its head. Even though the campaign is about what the players want to do (see: my [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/campaign-structural-paradigms.685649/post-8527642']comment[/URL] in another thread on the structure I use), they got worried they were “metagaming” because they had found what they thought they were looking for, but they had not found the key yet. There were several keys that would open it, but they had a thief. He could also open it. They were worried that having the thief pick the lock was “metagaming”. 🤦🏻‍♂️ [/QUOTE]

Verification