Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8827251" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'm sorry, man, but unless the time frames are extremely small, that just doesn't pass the sniff test.&nbsp; The way to show it is to ask the following question when the players say they're going to look for the others or go to the specific area they know the others are in &quot;When are you going?&quot;&nbsp; If the group tries to respond &quot;Now,&quot; ask &quot;Now as in when?&quot;&nbsp; Unless the events are in precise tactical sync (which most likely means the groups are in communication and make the matter moot) the first group doesn't even know when the second is in trouble; at best they know when they're done doing whatever they're doing, and those can be vastly different times (and if at all possible the GM plays out the group liable to finish their task first, then asks them what they're doing), or they're simply waiting, in which case they have no idea what point they need to go (and if they were waiting, presumably had a reason to do so).So in practice, there's no way for them to do so without referencing events the other group is involved with, because otherwise they have no idea what point to show up in any concrete way.&nbsp; (This assuming that there wasn't already an arrangement like &quot;If you're not back in an&nbsp; hour, we'll go off to see what's wrong&quot; in which case its again, moot.There's essentially no meaningful way for the first group to do this without clearly showing its a decision using information they don't really have.Or you can just firewall it and make the decision you think you'd make anyway.&nbsp; I don't think that's a decision that can meaningfully be called metagaming unless every decision you make for a character is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8827251, member: 7026617"] I'm sorry, man, but unless the time frames are extremely small, that just doesn't pass the sniff test. The way to show it is to ask the following question when the players say they're going to look for the others or go to the specific area they know the others are in "When are you going?" If the group tries to respond "Now," ask "Now as in when?" Unless the events are in precise tactical sync (which most likely means the groups are in communication and make the matter moot) the first group doesn't even know when the second is in trouble; at best they know when they're done doing whatever they're doing, and those can be vastly different times (and if at all possible the GM plays out the group liable to finish their task first, then asks them what they're doing), or they're simply waiting, in which case they have no idea what point they need to go (and if they were waiting, presumably had a reason to do so). So in practice, there's no way for them to do so without referencing events the other group is involved with, because otherwise they have [I]no idea[/I] what point to show up in any concrete way. (This assuming that there wasn't already an arrangement like "If you're not back in an hour, we'll go off to see what's wrong" in which case its again, moot. There's essentially no meaningful way for the first group to do this without clearly showing its a decision using information they don't really have. Or you can just firewall it and make the decision you think you'd make anyway. I don't think that's a decision that can meaningfully be called metagaming unless [I]every[/I] decision you make for a character is. [/QUOTE]

Verification