D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[iserith]

Perhaps it was that to you. You can say that without trying to awkwardly psychoanalyse people you do not know.

My analysis is about the approach, not about the person. Criticizing an idea isn't the same thing as criticizing a person... unless of course you are saying the idea I'm criticizing is part of your identity. If it's not, then your statement doesn't hold.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Perhaps it was that to you. You can say that without trying to awkwardly psychoanalyse people you do not know.

Is it any more out of line than the nearly constant accusations (some direct, some more oblique) that people who don't care about OOC knowledge are "gamist" or "not roleplaying" or "don't care about believability"?

 

[Cadence]

My analysis is about the approach, not about the person. Criticizing an idea isn't the same thing as criticizing a person... unless of course you are saying the idea I'm criticizing is part of your identity. If it's not, then your statement doesn't hold.

"probably" and "likely" in your statements seem to want to throw a wide net. :::shrugs::

Any of those who study psychology have any references on if zealotry a personality trait that survives conversion? I don't think I google searched the right things.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's the other way around actually. Since there is no in character reason for it, it pops me out of the fiction.

Can you give me an example of an action for which there is NO in-character reason?

(Note that this isn't the same as thinking, as a player, that the actual reason is not in-character.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is it any more out of line than the nearly constant accusations (some direct, some more oblique) that people who don't care about OOC knowledge are "gamist" or "not roleplaying" or "don't care about believability"?

Yes. Those are actions, not sweeping assumptions about the motivation or psychology behind those actions.

 

[iserith]

It's the other way around actually. Since there is no in character reason for it, it pops me out of the fiction.

Who are you to say there is no in-character reason for it though? Why not just mind your own business, assume there's a reason, and stay in character?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My analysis is about the approach, not about the person. Criticizing an idea isn't the same thing as criticizing a person... unless of course you are saying the idea I'm criticizing is part of your identity. If it's not, then your statement doesn't hold.

No. You are making sweeping and baseless assumptions about people's motivations.

 

[iserith]

No. You are making sweeping and baseless assumptions about people's motivations.

Sweeping? Maybe. Baseless? No. One need only read this thread to see the basis for this conclusion, particularly in what looks like post-hoc reasoning for not taking two simple steps to neutralize the effects of "metagaming" without demanding control over player action declarations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sweeping? Maybe. Baseless? No. One need only read this thread to see the basis for this conclusion, particularly in what looks like post-hoc reasoning for not taking two simple steps to neutralize the effects of "metagaming" without demanding control over player action declarations.

I tell you very kindly that your conclusion is wrong, and I have already explained many times why that is. Perhaps these things were true for you, that I cannot know, nor it is something that I would speculate upon.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes. Those are actions, not sweeping assumptions about the motivation or psychology behind those actions.

Wow. There's a shocking double standard here.