Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 3030954" data-attributes="member: 336">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.&nbsp; &quot;You see a troll approaching.&quot;&nbsp; In that case the player would almost immediately go into metagaming mode.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Most animals in the &quot;real world&quot; would not attack a creature they would consider more powerful, unless their very survival was threatened (mother defending cubs, etc.)&nbsp; So having an Int 5 Barbarian do so is pretty stupid, and truthfully not &quot;good&quot; roleplaying; if you even want to call it that.Rats, wolves, bears, tigers, lions and many other animals use rudimentary tactics all the time.&nbsp; Why would a party of &quot;human&quot; 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.&nbsp; However in game mechanics terms, a barbarian does have trap sense.&nbsp; He would be better aware of his surroundings, specially since they probably use the same type of traps themselves for hunting.&nbsp; So thinking twice about that would also have been &quot;in-character&quot;Excusing stupid behavior as &quot;roleplaying the character&quot; is usually just that, an excuse for &quot;disruptive&quot; behavior.Many people play the Lawful Good alignment of a Paladin as completely stupid.&nbsp; Is that any better &quot;roleplaying?&quot;&nbsp; Just because a Paladin would be honorable, and self-sacrificing in combat would not mean that he would use suboptimal &quot;tactics.&quot;For example, Deception is a tried and true military tactic.&nbsp; Would a Paladin not use a deception in combat just because he is Lawful Good?&nbsp; Not using the deception would be stupid.&nbsp; After all his goal is to defeat the enemy.&nbsp; I agree that there are things that a Paladin would not resort to, torture as an example.&nbsp; But I've seen some people really screw up some good party tactics by playing &quot;Lawful Stupid&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 3030954, member: 336"] 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" [/QUOTE]

Verification