Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8575467" data-attributes="member: 29398">You're far more forgiving on any of this than I am.This kind of metagaming is sometimes very bad.&nbsp; The PCs don't know a monster's AC (or not until they've tried hitting it several times, anyway) and so neither should the players.&nbsp; Information about the opposition is DM-side stuff.&nbsp; If a troll encounter turns into a TPK because no-one knows how to kill a troll (while simultaneously being either too stubborn or too unwise to run away) then so be it: let 'em die.Metagaming required to keep the game flowing does indeed include players knowing their modifiers; also their current hit point totals and spells remaining, and pretty much anything else on the character sheet.&nbsp; Metagaming required to get someone's new PC into the game is another example where keeping the game flowing overrides metagame concerns.Incidental metagaming, which I read to mean metagaming by accident, is fine if it only happens once per player.&nbsp; After that, and a warning to cease, it becomes intentional; which leads to......this; which is close-enough-to-never good to just say never and leave it at that.This type of metagaming also includes offering suggestions to the player of a PC whose situation your own PC knows nothing about.&nbsp; An example is a player telling the player of a PC who has scouted ahead alone how to deal with some unexpected threat that the telling player's PC would have no way to know about.&nbsp; Corollary is when the scout fails to return and the PCs of the other players, having seen at the table what became of said scout, somehow know exactly what happened and how to deal with it.This goes beyond metagaming into outright cheating, and yes: &quot;terminal&quot; is a good term for it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8575467, member: 29398"] You're far more forgiving on any of this than I am. This kind of metagaming is sometimes very bad. The PCs don't know a monster's AC (or not until they've tried hitting it several times, anyway) and so neither should the players. Information about the opposition is DM-side stuff. If a troll encounter turns into a TPK because no-one knows how to kill a troll (while simultaneously being either too stubborn or too unwise to run away) then so be it: let 'em die. Metagaming required to keep the game flowing does indeed include players knowing their modifiers; also their current hit point totals and spells remaining, and pretty much anything else on the character sheet. Metagaming required to get someone's new PC into the game is another example where keeping the game flowing overrides metagame concerns. Incidental metagaming, which I read to mean metagaming by accident, is fine if it only happens once per player. After that, and a warning to cease, it becomes intentional; which leads to... ...this; which is close-enough-to-never good to just say never and leave it at that. This type of metagaming also includes offering suggestions to the player of a PC whose situation your own PC knows nothing about. An example is a player telling the player of a PC who has scouted ahead alone how to deal with some unexpected threat that the telling player's PC would have no way to know about. Corollary is when the scout fails to return and the PCs of the other players, having seen at the table what became of said scout, somehow know exactly what happened and how to deal with it. This goes beyond metagaming into outright cheating, and yes: "terminal" is a good term for it. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification