Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8063714" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>But why is the GM the better source for what a character thinks than the player? You assume here that the GM has the superior position, but I don't see why that should or must be so. If the answer is to ensure proper playing, that's either something the player is on-board with and so doesn't need your help, or it's a problem because not everyone agrees as to what's proper playing. The GM isn't in charge of this -- it's a table issue, not a game one. If, as I see more often, the issue is to protect the GM's plot, well, the answer to this is evident -- don't GM that way and it won't be a problem. Regardless, it's not apparent that it's the GM's responsibility in game to enforce how the GM thinks the PCs should act.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, firstly, the latter example is a list of action declarations that the GM should adjudicate, so the difference between the two isn't one of kind, but one of</p><p>degree.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, the list of assumptions necessary for your chain of events to occur is pretty weird. You first have the GM establish that gunpowder as it exists in the real world also is possible, in exactly the same formula, in the game world. Secondly, this formula must be known to the GM, else how can they adjudicate it as exactly the same as the real world. Thirdly, the GM must be adverse to the PCs developing the gunpowder -- that the GM has allowed for in the world. Fourth, in your second example, the GM must both know the formula for gunpowder (according to the second assumption) but also not recognize that the player is instantiating it through these action declarations until the final result occurs. Finally, the GM here is assumed to have the ability to say no so long as the precise formula isn't presented, but be utterly powerless if the player says the magic words of the formula. </p><p></p><p>This is a weird set of assumptions that ends up still failing to make the point that the GM needs the ability to control PC thoughts to prevent catastrophe -- it's perfectly preventable even with most of these weird assumptions in place, it's only the last one, where you beg the question, that weirdness occurs. By this I mean that you include in your assumptions that not preventing "metagaming" causes problems only to discover in your conclusion that not preventing "metagaming" causes problems. Well, no wonder, you've assumed your conclusion in the premise.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Clarifying things doesn't involve telling players what their PCs think, it involves getting on the same page as to the fictional positioning. Either side can bend -- this isn't a GM to player thing only. I've, quite often, realized I've failed at establishing a shared understanding and chosen to go with what the players understand rather than what I initially intended because it's easier to correct one person than a whole table of players.</p><p></p><p>My 5e games aren't gamist at all. If I was playing Moldvoy Basic, then they'd be very gamist. The rulesets, despite both being D&D, are very different. Still, my players knowing about trolls means that forcing them to pretend they don't with some new characters is pretty boring and frustrating, so we skip that. We skip worrying about anything but portraying the character how the player wishes to portray the character. I don't police this. And, lo and behold, I get players that have deep and rich characters, and put their character's desires to the forefront. I get this because I engage those characters, make their wants and goals matter so there's reward for playing to those, and don't worry if I don't understand why a player might chose a certain actions. I might ask, out of curiosity, but not to correct or change. I don't need to understand why, I just need to be able to adjudicate the action. If I present challenging scenes and don't predicate those challenges on secret information the players already know, then I get great roleplay and engagement from my players -- all without ever once worrying about "metagaming." If my players guess, or know, something already, that's no sweat off my brow -- I've got infinite dragons. I can let that one go and do better next time.</p><p></p><p>Honestly, I'd suggest getting out and playing in a game that isn't D&D. I'd recommend one of the PbtA games, or a FATE game, run by someone that really loves those games and has experience with them. Experience a game that's very different from D&D -- it'll make your D&D game better. Even if you chose to change nothing, you'll better know why you like the things you do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8063714, member: 16814"] But why is the GM the better source for what a character thinks than the player? You assume here that the GM has the superior position, but I don't see why that should or must be so. If the answer is to ensure proper playing, that's either something the player is on-board with and so doesn't need your help, or it's a problem because not everyone agrees as to what's proper playing. The GM isn't in charge of this -- it's a table issue, not a game one. If, as I see more often, the issue is to protect the GM's plot, well, the answer to this is evident -- don't GM that way and it won't be a problem. Regardless, it's not apparent that it's the GM's responsibility in game to enforce how the GM thinks the PCs should act. Well, firstly, the latter example is a list of action declarations that the GM should adjudicate, so the difference between the two isn't one of kind, but one of degree. Secondly, the list of assumptions necessary for your chain of events to occur is pretty weird. You first have the GM establish that gunpowder as it exists in the real world also is possible, in exactly the same formula, in the game world. Secondly, this formula must be known to the GM, else how can they adjudicate it as exactly the same as the real world. Thirdly, the GM must be adverse to the PCs developing the gunpowder -- that the GM has allowed for in the world. Fourth, in your second example, the GM must both know the formula for gunpowder (according to the second assumption) but also not recognize that the player is instantiating it through these action declarations until the final result occurs. Finally, the GM here is assumed to have the ability to say no so long as the precise formula isn't presented, but be utterly powerless if the player says the magic words of the formula. This is a weird set of assumptions that ends up still failing to make the point that the GM needs the ability to control PC thoughts to prevent catastrophe -- it's perfectly preventable even with most of these weird assumptions in place, it's only the last one, where you beg the question, that weirdness occurs. By this I mean that you include in your assumptions that not preventing "metagaming" causes problems only to discover in your conclusion that not preventing "metagaming" causes problems. Well, no wonder, you've assumed your conclusion in the premise. Clarifying things doesn't involve telling players what their PCs think, it involves getting on the same page as to the fictional positioning. Either side can bend -- this isn't a GM to player thing only. I've, quite often, realized I've failed at establishing a shared understanding and chosen to go with what the players understand rather than what I initially intended because it's easier to correct one person than a whole table of players. My 5e games aren't gamist at all. If I was playing Moldvoy Basic, then they'd be very gamist. The rulesets, despite both being D&D, are very different. Still, my players knowing about trolls means that forcing them to pretend they don't with some new characters is pretty boring and frustrating, so we skip that. We skip worrying about anything but portraying the character how the player wishes to portray the character. I don't police this. And, lo and behold, I get players that have deep and rich characters, and put their character's desires to the forefront. I get this because I engage those characters, make their wants and goals matter so there's reward for playing to those, and don't worry if I don't understand why a player might chose a certain actions. I might ask, out of curiosity, but not to correct or change. I don't need to understand why, I just need to be able to adjudicate the action. If I present challenging scenes and don't predicate those challenges on secret information the players already know, then I get great roleplay and engagement from my players -- all without ever once worrying about "metagaming." If my players guess, or know, something already, that's no sweat off my brow -- I've got infinite dragons. I can let that one go and do better next time. Honestly, I'd suggest getting out and playing in a game that isn't D&D. I'd recommend one of the PbtA games, or a FATE game, run by someone that really loves those games and has experience with them. Experience a game that's very different from D&D -- it'll make your D&D game better. Even if you chose to change nothing, you'll better know why you like the things you do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)
Top