Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8825774" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Yes they absolutely should. It conveys a litttle information… “Wow I rolled high and still didn’t succeed; this is harder than I was expecting” and similar. These are observable things to the characters. Informed players > uninformed players. This is the problem. Your expectations seem very out of line with your group. Actually, I personally find the second example a bit more immersive. The numbers give a specificity to the information that the words in the first lack.  The. Horror.No, it’s not. It’s spot on.If your goal is to prevent outside considerations from affecting play, many times the attempts to stop metagaming from happening actually require metagaming. The split party thing… sometimes, people do randomly decide to show up and it happens to be in the nick of time. Your view prevents that possibility. It prevents that possibility due to considerations outside the game. You are still letting player knowledge influence what happens in the game. Same with the minster vulnerability thing. Sometimes, a new player (view this as an inexperienced character) may intuit or even just by luck to use fire on trolls. If a veteran player is playing a low level character, preventing them from using fire IS metagaming. Instead of the player using their knowledge in order to take an action, it’s you as GM using their knowledge to prevent an action. It’s also a perfect example of how metagaming can be the GM’s fault. If you don’t want that to happen, then don’t design encounters with trolls for veteran players. It’s not your fault that they’re metagaming. It’s your fault that you have a really broad definition of metagaming and that you feel the need to prevent others from doing it. They cleary don’t feel the same about it as you. They don’t mind it. Instead of expecting everyone else to budge, maybe you should?</blockquote>

Verification