Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wayne62682" data-source="post: 3030816" data-attributes="member: 40455">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 <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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</blockquote>

Verification