Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8825341" data-attributes="member: 97077">Again, you're not at fault for what players do. You are responsible if you create the conditions for the things you don't like, then judge people for doing those things.I fully agree about control here. Like you can control your decision to get worked up about how and why a player makes a decision for their character and just not do that. That's where I would start before trying to change other people.As for social contracts, people should be held to their agreements in my view. But your list of what you think &quot;metagaming&quot; can be appears to be so broad that I wonder if anyone could even reasonably understand what's going to set you off, even if they agree to a &quot; no metagaming&quot; policy as a general table rule.They are free to ask why you made a call. You are free to ask them why they made the decision they did. Neither of your are obligated to answer, nor even change a ruling or course of action based on an answer freely given. Why you would even want to know, given that some subset of answers is going to set you off, seems very curious to me. Why you would want to exert control by having them &quot;rethink&quot; their answer if it doesn't please you is more curious still.It should be noted that this is just your personal opinion (the bolded), one shared by some previous versions of the game to be sure, but not all versions of D&amp;D, nor all RPGs. The problem with that is it's trivially easy to come up with a reason why any character does something up to and including &quot;just felt like it.&quot; Specific &quot;character knowledge&quot; isn't necessarily required to act any particular way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 8825341, member: 97077"] Again, you're not at fault for what players do. You are responsible if you create the conditions for the things you don't like, then judge people for doing those things. I fully agree about control here. Like you can control your decision to get worked up about how and why a player makes a decision for their character and just not do that. That's where I would start before trying to change other people. As for social contracts, people should be held to their agreements in my view. But your list of what you think "metagaming" can be appears to be so broad that I wonder if anyone could even reasonably understand what's going to set you off, even if they agree to a " no metagaming" policy as a general table rule. They are free to ask why you made a call. You are free to ask them why they made the decision they did. Neither of your are obligated to answer, nor even change a ruling or course of action based on an answer freely given. Why you would even want to know, given that some subset of answers is going to set you off, seems very curious to me. Why you would want to exert control by having them "rethink" their answer if it doesn't please you is more curious still. It should be noted that this is just your personal opinion (the bolded), one shared by some previous versions of the game to be sure, but not all versions of D&D, nor all RPGs. The problem with that is it's trivially easy to come up with a reason why any character does something up to and including "just felt like it." Specific "character knowledge" isn't necessarily required to act any particular way. [/QUOTE]

Verification