"Roleplaying": Thank you, Mr. Baur

[wayne62682]

I'm not saying that my approach is right and everyone else's is wrong (not that anyone said I was, just stating it to be certain). I guess.. well okay let me explain a little more. The example with the Knight, I would have no problem doing (I've done it with Paladin/honourable characters before and there was nothing stopping me from doing it, by which I mean no mechanical penalties like for the Knight).

My issue comes up with what many people equate to be "Metagaming". In other words, I don't see the issue with it. Playing a character with a low INT score and saying something like "I as a player know the answer to this riddle-trap, but my character isn't smart enough to figure it out, so I'm going to let him die" to me is just ludicrous, although a fair amount of blame needs to be put on the DM if he knew the player would "play their character" and die in the situation.

The "optimum tactical choice" comes into play because... okay, I admit it: I don't like to lose. Ever. Anything, to me, that forces me to make suboptimal choices for x number of rounds before I "figure it out" to me is stupidity, because it's deliberately putting my character into a bad situation, and that to me means there's a good chance I could end up dead and waste all the time and effort I put into the character. Maybe it's because I no longer equate playing a D&D character like acting in a play, so the old "the Audience [read: player] knows what the Hero [read: PC] doesn't" routine doesn't mean anything to me anymore. Perhaps I need some drama classes

I don't like how D&D uses the dice (i.e. a random factor that can fail at any time) to represent what your character would know about Monster A, and that it's "bad" to use knowledge of Monster A without making a skill roll first. Maybe it's just my experience, but when I played 2nd edition that never came up at all (neither did being able to tell a player out of character "Hey Bob, your character should move to Y and do X", although for the record we DID keep the "You aren't in the room, he can't tell you that" stuff).

Nobody cared if you saw a Troll and without thinking you busted out the fire; now in 3.5 you're "metagaming" unless you spent your already-limited skill points on Knowledge: Nature (probably a cross class skill anyways, thus costing even MORE) to "recall" that Trolls are vulnerable to fire.

To be fair, I see nothing wrong with doing this, and I probably would have more fun if I did it myself (Combat in D&D is boring to me.. basically Warhammer Lite with a few more flavourful descriptions of what goes on); I just cannot get into that mentality and know that since my character Thog has never fought a troll, he has to get smacked down for a few rounds (which, when facing a troll could easily result in death via Rending) first before I can chuck Alchemist's Fire at it and really start to damage it.. in short, I waste rounds attacking it because it'll heal most of that damage, while I have no such luxury.

Sorry for the long-winded post. Maybe I just have the "videogame" mentalty where I can see everything and immediatly know it and can apply it, there's no such thing as "Metagaming" in Final Fantasy, for example. If you know that a certain monster is weak against fire, nobody is going to tell you "You don't know he's weak against fire, you can't use Fireball yet"

Regards,
Wayne

 

[Glyfair]

My issue comes up with what many people equate to be "Metagaming".

That's because it is metagaming. The real issue is how much metagamiing a person is comfortable with, and that varies widely. Even individuals vary over time in this.

Everyone metagames at some level. As soon as you look at the stats on a character sheet and make a decision based on that you are metagaming at some tiny level. Some of the worst games I've played in had little metagaming, because the players didn't take into account they were playing a game and ruined the fun for the other players because "it's what my character would do."

I think that's the first thing a group should discuss when they start playing. "How much metagaming do you prefer?" It's fine and expected to have differing answers, but you should know where everyone stands.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

There is nothing wrong with metagaming.

 

[buzz]

This advice about setting the DC is worth its weight in gold! Has anyone read clear guidelines like this before or is Wolfgang Baur the first to officially say it?

I was thinking the same thing. This is the first time I've seen that advice, and it's gold, baby.

 

[buzz]

Personally I think this is just another attempt to expand the political correctness mentality in 3E. Moving around and saying where you stand while you swing your sword, shoot your bow, or cast your spell is not roleplaying.

If you're playing D&D, you're roleplaying. That was the whole point I was trying to stress by posting Baur's quote.

Just because a player's focus isn't immersion and actor stance does not mean that they're not roleplaying. It may not a be a kind of roleplaying you enjoy, but it's roleplaying nonetheless.

 

[buzz]

There is nothing wrong with metagaming.

QFT, big thyme.

It doesn't matter if my barb has Int 5. He's been a warrior, born and bred, all his life. He dang well knows something about tactics and the arts of war, and as a player, I'm dang well going to try and figure out the best amount to, e.g., Power Attack, because how else do I reflect that my PC is a competent warrior?

There's a time and place for enforcing in-character knowledge, but it's not 100% of the time in 100% of the places.

 

[D'karr]

That's because it is metagaming. The real issue is how much metagamiing a person is comfortable with, and that varies widely. Even individuals vary over time in this.

Everyone metagames at some level. As soon as you look at the stats on a character sheet and make a decision based on that you are metagaming at some tiny level. Some of the worst games I've played in had little metagaming, because the players didn't take into account they were playing a game and ruined the fun for the other players because "it's what my character would do."

I think that's the first thing a group should discuss when they start playing. "How much metagaming do you prefer?" It's fine and expected to have differing answers, but you should know where everyone stands.

I think that some level of metagaming is really a function of definitions/descriptions provided by the DM.

For example, trolls might be common in his world and instead of describing the creature he just names it. "You see a troll approaching." In that case the player would almost immediately go into metagaming mode. There might be some common knowledge from stories the character heard as a kid that trolls are vulnerable to x.

If the DM truly acts as the eyes and ears of the characters then his descriptions will set the tone for the amount of metagaming.

Most animals in game mechanics terms have Int scores below 3. Most animals in the "real world" would not attack a creature they would consider more powerful, unless their very survival was threatened (mother defending cubs, etc.) So having an Int 5 Barbarian do so is pretty stupid, and truthfully not "good" roleplaying; if you even want to call it that.

Rats, wolves, bears, tigers, lions and many other animals use rudimentary tactics all the time. Why would a party of "human" intelligence barbarians not do the same?

The example of going for the food on the trap is probably a good example, since survival at the point might have made the character more reckless. However in game mechanics terms, a barbarian does have trap sense. He would be better aware of his surroundings, specially since they probably use the same type of traps themselves for hunting. So thinking twice about that would also have been "in-character"

Excusing stupid behavior as "roleplaying the character" is usually just that, an excuse for "disruptive" behavior.

Many people play the Lawful Good alignment of a Paladin as completely stupid. Is that any better "roleplaying?" Just because a Paladin would be honorable, and self-sacrificing in combat would not mean that he would use suboptimal "tactics."

For example, Deception is a tried and true military tactic. Would a Paladin not use a deception in combat just because he is Lawful Good? Not using the deception would be stupid. After all his goal is to defeat the enemy. I agree that there are things that a Paladin would not resort to, torture as an example. But I've seen some people really screw up some good party tactics by playing "Lawful Stupid"

 

[seskis281]

There's a time and place for enforcing in-character knowledge, but it's not 100% of the time in 100% of the places.

Agreed.... my example of the barbarian doesn't mean I would want a character to act "stupidly" in all situations... and certainly I tell players with characters like this who might start to do something in combat based on that roleplay "I think Grug's been in enough battles to avoid making that choice...." - on the other hand a situation like the trap I mentioned above with the barbarian would be a wholly different matter, unless he has seen that sort of thing numerous times. So no, it shouldn't be 100% in either time or place...

But it shouldn't be 0% either. I think the reason we keep seeing these somewhat heated threads on terms like "metagaming" and "roleplay vs. rollplay" come up because we have a tendency to keep swerving to an either/or kind of thing. Even as a theatre guy, I DON'T want roleplay to mean "theatrics" at the table all the time.... which alot of people associate with the term. I DO want discussion sometimes between players OOG... which some people call "metagaming," and I encourage it at points because it is a game.... ("Hey... isn't your character from such-and-such a place? Wouldn't they know something about this evil group?" - "Oh yeah... do I know something about x?" - GM says "absoultely" and gives info.... sometimes I'd be the one to remind them).

But I do maintain that "roleplaying" means some level of attention to the characters you play - not through theatrics or voices necessarily, but through making sure choices fit with a character's beliefs and attributes. Ergo my problem with the Druid who torches nature to kill the Troll...

As a GM I don't think I should be trying to kill characters. I've never had a TPK in any game I've run - I've had times where two characters had to carry the lifeless bodies of comrades back to town and spend much gold on resurrection. Of course, that answers the "after 100's of hours invested I don't want to lose my character" - wouldn't that be the intent of the availability of restoration and resurrection spells in the 1st place at higher levels?

I also rewared good "roleplay" with its own xp, and if a character plays their "role" well, especially in combat, I as GM am certainly going to provide the "outs" for saving the character.

Now if a PLAYER just plays stupidly, that's a different story and a different thread.

In all this we've mainly talked about INT or WIS... what about alignment? I mean, the best tactical move for a LG or NG wizard might be to haul out fireball and be damned what the collatoral damage could be (in a city for instance).... but I'd want the character of that alignment to play their character as if they cared about what they unintentionally do with a spell. I had a good wizard stop and say to me "By the way... what I'm about to say to this captive Orc is just BS... my character won't actually do this..." and then proceed to threaten intense flaying and torture with the help of prestidigitation to produce imaginary razors while he described to the Orc what was "about" to happen, so the party could get a piece of much needed info. Had he just DONE said torture it would have been completely out of character... but what he did was good roleplaying, IMHO, and while reminding me OOG about his character might be "metagaming" it's different than players stopping and talking tactics during a fight.

Again, all just my opinion here.

 

[wayne62682]

I DO want discussion sometimes between players OOG... which some people call "metagaming," and I encourage it at points because it is a game.... ("Hey... isn't your character from such-and-such a place? Wouldn't they know something about this evil group?" - "Oh yeah... do I know something about x?" - GM says "absoultely" and gives info.... sometimes I'd be the one to remind them).

Heh.. in my group I get dirty looks if I say this to someone.. either because the player doesn't want to be reminded (if they forgot about it.. they feel as though I'm trying to play their character for them) or because "I never told your character that" and I'm trying to "metagame" by asking it *roll eyes*.

But then again I think my group takes it too far once in a while.. we're 6th leven and the DM has asked for Knowledge (Nature) skills to identify a Hobgoblin and a Bugbear. Someone didn't have it and he said "Well, it's some kind of goblinoid". Now, maybe I'm wrong but in a normal campaign setting (this was FR), aren't hobgoblins supposed to be relatively common creatures?

 

[Delta]

Wow, I think some people are really missing the point.

So aren't all encounters roleplaying encounters in a roleplaying game?

Yes, they are.

When creating and playing a character in D&D, you are always roleplaying because the character is not you.

This isn't saying "you should talk like your character in combat". This is saying that "even if you don't talk in a fight you are still roleplaying". Example:

Player A: My fighter hits the orc with a sword.
DM: How much damage?
Player A: 15 points, I used Power Attack.

That's still roleplaying (according the Baur's argument). Player A decided what action his character should take, and the best tactics for doing so, and that satisfies the dictionary-definition of "roleplaying". You don't need the play-acting to be roleplaying.