Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7570004">Ok, so let's say the following happens:On initiative count 17 the wizard tries a spell and discovers she's immune.&nbsp; He says, &quot;Next round I'll try hitting her with my Wand of Lightning.&quot;On initiative count 11 the warrior-frog says, &quot;Ribbit.&nbsp; I'll guess I'll hop over here...no, that would put me closer to the bonfire that would scare me...there's water over that way, right?...I guess I'll take a few hops and land about....there.&quot;Turns out he is now directly between the wizard and the frog.&nbsp; Hmmm.&nbsp; Suspicious.&nbsp; Is he a dirty metagamer? Should we look up the movement rate for a frog and get into a debate about whether or not he would have used all of it?&nbsp; Or was he really trying to act like a frog?In @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077" target="_blank">iserith</a>'s game you would know he was just trying to act like a frog, because otherwise he would have simply announced what he was doing.&nbsp; (Or not, because he was hoping people would be surprised by the outcome, and therefore find it even more entertaining.&nbsp; But not because he was hoping to &quot;get away with&quot; something.)Same thing with your Scarred Lands example.&nbsp; Now, I happen to agree with you that it would be more fun if he really tried to kill everyone else in the party.&nbsp; But, honestly, it shouldn't make one bit of difference which way he goes, or where on the spectrum he ends up between &quot;take plausible actions that are actually intended to save my friends&quot; and &quot;do my darndest to kill everyone&quot;.&nbsp; If you're thinking of the story you're watching unfold, that story could either be:a) The undead thingy charmed the wizard, which turned out to be its own undoing!, orb) The undead thingy charmed the wizard, and when the wizard came to his senses he was aghast (get it?) to discover that he had deep fried all his friends!Either way, it's a good story.&nbsp; So isn't it best to just allow everybody to be honest about what they're doing?Another example of how I think we're interpreting the original story differently.So one more question: imagine a person who frequently does non-advantageous but highly entertaining things. You know he metagames, but in ways that contribute to the story.&nbsp; Then one night he pulls the suicidal frog trick.&nbsp; Does it bother you less?If so, maybe the disconnect here is that we're both simply imagining a different underlying motivation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7570004"] Ok, so let's say the following happens: On initiative count 17 the wizard tries a spell and discovers she's immune. He says, "Next round I'll try hitting her with my Wand of Lightning." On initiative count 11 the warrior-frog says, "Ribbit. I'll guess I'll hop over here...no, that would put me closer to the bonfire that would scare me...there's water over that way, right?...I guess I'll take a few hops and land about....there." Turns out he is now directly between the wizard and the frog. Hmmm. Suspicious. Is he a dirty metagamer? Should we look up the movement rate for a frog and get into a debate about whether or not he would have used all of it? Or was he really trying to act like a frog? In @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077"]iserith[/URL][/U][/B][/I]'s game you would know he was just trying to act like a frog, because otherwise he would have simply announced what he was doing. (Or not, because he was hoping people would be surprised by the outcome, and therefore find it even more entertaining. But not because he was hoping to "get away with" something.) Same thing with your Scarred Lands example. Now, I happen to agree with you that it would be more fun if he really tried to kill everyone else in the party. But, honestly, it shouldn't make one bit of difference which way he goes, or where on the spectrum he ends up between "take plausible actions that are actually intended to save my friends" and "do my darndest to kill everyone". If you're thinking of the story you're watching unfold, that story could either be: a) The undead thingy charmed the wizard, which turned out to be its own undoing!, or b) The undead thingy charmed the wizard, and when the wizard came to his senses he was aghast (get it?) to discover that he had deep fried all his friends! Either way, it's a good story. So isn't it best to just allow everybody to be honest about what they're doing? Another example of how I think we're interpreting the original story differently. So one more question: imagine a person who frequently does non-advantageous but highly entertaining things. You know he metagames, but in ways that contribute to the story. Then one night he pulls the suicidal frog trick. Does it bother you less? If so, maybe the disconnect here is that we're both simply imagining a different underlying motivation. [/QUOTE]

Verification