Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 8570019" data-attributes="member: 19857">I mean, I'll agree that &quot;don't be a dick&quot;, &quot;don't split the party&quot;, and &quot;don't stab your fellow PCs in the back to take their stuff&quot; are also kind of metagame rules, but they're usually NOT called metagaming but instead have their own name - &quot;social contract&quot;.&nbsp; You can include things like X-cards and player content vetoes in the same group as well.&nbsp; Yes they're things outside of the game that impact how the game is played, so in that sense they're metagaming, but they're constraints on the game that should, in a good game, be explicit rather than implicit and so anyone breaking the conventions around these agreed on at the table is not really metagaming, they're just pissing people off because they refuse to play by the actual rules laid down by the group and are trying to drive the game into a place where the group explicitly said it didn't want to go. If you have a group where most of the group doesn't want to engage in PvP but one player insists on doing it every single campaign and it makes people angry that might be metagaming, but it's also just a lousy player that is asking to be removed from the game.&nbsp; Conversely if the group wants PvP then there's no issue - everyone's expecting it and it's just part of the game.&nbsp; So if you want to hive these off into their own category of metagaming that's fine, but in my mind violating social contracts goes beyond the usual complaints about metagaming and into more general complaints about problem players/GMs and how you remove them from your table/exit their group. (I hesitate calling this &quot;metagaming&quot; myself if only because it applies to all group social situations really, not just gaming around a table).I didn't say that 4 didn't contain a lot of examples, I said that there are few complaints about it as metagaming for the most part.&nbsp; The complaints around trail of breadcrumb adventures are usually more about adventure design (it didn't include enough hooks, the adventure wasn't interesting enough, it was a railroad,etc.) or GMing technique (not realizing the weakness of the adventure design and being able to paper over it) rather than complaints about metagaming.&nbsp; Poor adventure design can absolutely lead you to having to metagame more to fill in the problems - or as my players will sing if we hit a point where I've set up some weak sauce hook for them &quot;if you ask yourself how Joel eats and breathes, and other science facts/remind yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 8570019, member: 19857"] I mean, I'll agree that "don't be a dick", "don't split the party", and "don't stab your fellow PCs in the back to take their stuff" are also kind of metagame rules, but they're usually NOT called metagaming but instead have their own name - "social contract". You can include things like X-cards and player content vetoes in the same group as well. Yes they're things outside of the game that impact how the game is played, so in that sense they're metagaming, but they're constraints on the game that should, in a good game, be explicit rather than implicit and so anyone breaking the conventions around these agreed on at the table is not really metagaming, they're just pissing people off because they refuse to play by the actual rules laid down by the group and are trying to drive the game into a place where the group explicitly said it didn't want to go. If you have a group where most of the group doesn't want to engage in PvP but one player insists on doing it every single campaign and it makes people angry that might be metagaming, but it's also just a lousy player that is asking to be removed from the game. Conversely if the group wants PvP then there's no issue - everyone's expecting it and it's just part of the game. So if you want to hive these off into their own category of metagaming that's fine, but in my mind violating social contracts goes beyond the usual complaints about metagaming and into more general complaints about problem players/GMs and how you remove them from your table/exit their group. (I hesitate calling this "metagaming" myself if only because it applies to all group social situations really, not just gaming around a table). I didn't say that 4 didn't contain a lot of examples, I said that there are few complaints about it as metagaming for the most part. The complaints around trail of breadcrumb adventures are usually more about adventure design (it didn't include enough hooks, the adventure wasn't interesting enough, it was a railroad,etc.) or GMing technique (not realizing the weakness of the adventure design and being able to paper over it) rather than complaints about metagaming. Poor adventure design can absolutely lead you to having to metagame more to fill in the problems - or as my players will sing if we hit a point where I've set up some weak sauce hook for them "if you ask yourself how Joel eats and breathes, and other science facts/remind yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax". [/QUOTE]

Verification