Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8825708" data-attributes="member: 7031982">While exercising the hound this morning (no, that's not a euphemism, unfortunately) I had some more thoughts about this.  Hopefully this will be as eloquent in writing as it was in my head.If somebody is opposed to metagaming, but it's a non-issue because for years they've had a regular group of like-minded players and thus it doesn't really come up at the table, great.  Carry on.But the virulence expressed by some suggests it's not that easy. It seems like there's a problem in that the anti-metagamers find themselves...frequently? occasionally?...at a table with players who don't share their beliefs.When that's the case, instead of debating what's a "better" play style, ask yourself if it's better to insist that there are two opposed play styles that cannot co-exist (at the same table) without tension, or to adopt a philosophy that lets everybody at the table have fun together?Upthread one of the evil metagaming examples offered was a situation where the party is split, and when something interesting happens to one group, the other group shows up with the excuse that they wanted to borrow a book. Or maybe it was to return a book.  This sort of things happens all the time in books and movies.  The hero walks into the room, "Hey, honey, have you seen my random orbital sander?" only to discover that the bad guys are there.  Mayhem ensues.Now, sometimes the "excuses" are less interesting than others, but sometimes the sheer absurdity of the coincidence is part of the entertainment.  Anybody remember the Pink Panther where Clouseau is in a public restroom and he drops the roll of toilet paper?  As he leans down and reaches under the door to try to retrieve it, the assassins in the booths on either side of him shoot through the partitions and kill each other.  Awesome.  We don't roll our eyes and say, "The director couldn't think of a realistic way to get the hero out of a tight spot so had to invent that improbable coincidence."So when a player announces their character runs down the hall to where the action is, and bursts in asking for their book, why is that so terrible?  I mean, it's not very creative the second time it's used, and maybe it misses an opportunity for something more interesting that might be a seed for an evolving plot (or maybe the book in question is vital the plot and it's actually a great idea).  But it's not outside the fiction.I suspect, for those who are bothered by it, it's because we are judging not the narrative itself, but rather the player's motivation for choosing that narrative. And every time this debate comes up, that seems to be where it leads: some players/DMs judging other players for the reasons they choose actions, not necessarily for the actions themselves.And something else to consider: if the players don't share anti-metagaming beliefs, they are still going to metagame, just more subtly.  So when a reason comes up to split the party, they are going to think ahead and realize the DM won't allow them to make certain decisions if a problem arises, so they are just going to try to refuse to split up, even if that's what the narrative calls for.  Have you really achieved anything?Imagine the following scenario (which I plagiarized from...somebody):1. Your 12 year old niece plays D&D for the first time ever.  Knowing nothing about the game, as soon as she sees a troll regenerate she thinks to use fire on it.  Awesome, right?2. The next day, her dad tells you, "Haha...the one thing I told her was to expect trolls, and to use fire on them.  I knew it would drive you crazy."  OMG...she's a dirty metagamer!3. Some time after that, you find out from your sister that her husband was just pulling your leg because he knows how you feel about metagaming, and he didn't tell her any such thing.  She really did spontaneously think of it.  Awesome again!If the "you" in the story responds as I describe, flip-flopping between cheering the player's action and being annoyed by it, it shows that it's all in your head.  The actual action at the table hasn't changed, only our belief about the motivation of the player.  Why?  Why do you care about their motivations?I used to live 5 miles out on a busy two-lane highway with few opportunities to pass where people frequently drove below the posted speed limit.  It drove me crazy.   "USE THE OTHER PEDAL!!!" I would shout.  My wife convinced me to imagine my own mom in the car ahead of me, nervous about driving at dusk with close oncoming traffic and narrow shoulders.  Whenever I managed to do that (I'll admit it wasn't easy) the driving of the person ahead of me stopped bothering me.  It was all in my own head.  (I'll point out that it took a while for her to convince me.  I'm glad I didn't react the way that some here react to [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER].)If you can bring yourself to not care about the motivations of other players, and only focus on the action at the table (and your own motivations), then there's no distinction between action declarations that originate with roleplaying and those that originate with metagaming.  You can play your own character however you want, roleplaying in the way you think is best, and be completely unaffected by how other people choose to play theirs.  Both play styles can peacefully coexist.So, again, it's not about which play style is better, it's about whether it's better to allow people with different preferences to game together happily, or to insist that they can't.</blockquote>

Verification