Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8575197" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think there’s an interesting juxtaposition among things that normally get classified as metagaming.There’s the classic example of players whose characters have never encountered trolls before deploying fire immediately upon finding one. This is very often viewed in a negative light. Many GMs will restrict such action or at the very least frown upon it.But the same GM will introduce the plothook of the half-elven mage dropping his notes at the PCs’ feet and will expect the players to have their characters take the cue. Here’s the adventure…please bite and I’ll reel you in. This is good metagaming because it facilitates play.That’s the kind of dichotomy that I think was suggested in the OP. It’s an interesting phenomenon.Does this often happen because the GM is the arbiter of what’s “good” or “bad” metagaming?I view the first example as one of the players communicating to the GM “okay let’s get on with it”. Much as the second is an example of the GM saying to the players “here we go”.Is the first frowned upon because it originates with the players? Or that it contradicts what the GM wants to see? Or is there something else going on?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8575197, member: 6785785"] I think there’s an interesting juxtaposition among things that normally get classified as metagaming. There’s the classic example of players whose characters have never encountered trolls before deploying fire immediately upon finding one. This is very often viewed in a negative light. Many GMs will restrict such action or at the very least frown upon it. But the same GM will introduce the plothook of the half-elven mage dropping his notes at the PCs’ feet and will expect the players to have their characters take the cue. Here’s the adventure…please bite and I’ll reel you in. This is good metagaming because it facilitates play. That’s the kind of dichotomy that I think was suggested in the OP. It’s an interesting phenomenon. Does this often happen because the GM is the arbiter of what’s “good” or “bad” metagaming? I view the first example as one of the players communicating to the GM “okay let’s get on with it”. Much as the second is an example of the GM saying to the players “here we go”. Is the first frowned upon because it originates with the players? Or that it contradicts what the GM wants to see? Or is there something else going on? [/QUOTE]

Verification