All of these actions are a player being a jerk. The first is an example I specifically called out as unreasonable and unwarranted, and thus, it isn't railroading to tell the player "no, you can't do that". I specifically called that out because it is so commonly used as an example.
And all examples of
metagaming as the player is a jerk in real life and is forcing that upon the game.
The second is, again, clearly unreasonable and unwarranted. A player who does this is simply being a butthole. If a player actually said this to me, I would first think it was a joke and laugh. I would then stare at them dumbfounded for a moment, before asking, "Do you really think your character would ever do that? That's completely irrational. What in God's name would justify doing that?" And since I genuinely do not believe any answer to that question exists, there is no possible world where I would permit that. It isn't railroading. It's expecting players to take actions that are, as I said, reasonable and warranted. It is flatly neither reasonable nor warranted to destroy the hard-won prize that will save the kingdom and which you just fought so hard to obtain.
Right, not railroading.
What I said was players must
metagame, that is do or not do action in the game world based on reality.
Joe makes an elf character. Bob hates Joe, so he makes an orc character that hates elves. On round one of the game Bob has his orc attack Joes elf because it is "reasonable and warranted." This is
metagaming Bob's orc is ONLY attacking Joe's elf because he hates Joe. In a good game this would not be allowed, the DM in their role as Adult Disciplinarian, would tell Bob flat out "No. Your both players in the game. You have to play the game together as a group no matter your real feelings." Or just boot Bob from the group.
The point was that the player means to cast the spell on the doppelganger, because that's who they think the king is. They're in range of the doppelganger, but NOT in range of the real king. As a result, if the GM were to just say that the spell fails, it would instantly reveal the ruse: the players would know immediately that, whoever it is in that meeting, it isn't the real king. But since preserving that ruse until the right moment is critical to the GM's plot, because the players need to obey the fake king in a later scene, the GM has to come up with an excuse for why the spell won't work that won't give away the plot. Hence, it is railroading; the GM is forcing a specific sequence of events to occur, inventing ad hoc reasons why a thing the players want to do won't work.
This will depend a lot on the game rules, but most games like D&D the character would have no idea why the spell failed. And even if the game had such rules, this is where the DM house rules that away before the game.
Same issue applies though. If the party casts charm person on a doppelganger, it will fail because they aren't humanoids, they're monstrosities. As a result, they would instantly know that the king is fake, and the GM wants to prevent them from knowing until the right time. Thus, the GM invents a reason why the spell will fail, which is different from just "the rules forbid you from doing that". You're getting distracted by the "the rules say you can't" part, and missing how the GM making up a different explanation is a form of railroading to conceal their pre-set plot.
Your making huge jumps here. Again, how and why does the character and player know the reason the spell failed.
It's not that different. Yes, it involves live interaction, but you do most of the writing part at other times. You aren't writing the session AS you conduct it, most of the time.
Well, not physically writing. But you are using the writings as a base.
Then you are using the word "casual" in a way I never, ever would have, nor would I ever have guessed that. It's a little frustrating to have such idiosyncratic terms, particularly when you have dismissed others' arguments in the past for being "word salad".
If you're going to use a term like this where "casual" doesn't mean "casual", it actually means "lazy, unserious, and flippant", you should explain that, rather than presuming everyone understands what you mean by such a term.
This is what Casual means? "relaxed and unconcerned" "Relaxed, easy-going, and informal in manner. Not overly concerned or serious. nonchalant or indifferent."
Not that I'm specifically aware of, no. I would allow that this is one subtype of metagaming. But there are several other types, and those types are much more common in my experience.
Both players and DMs talking or not taking game actions based on The Real World is very common.
I strongly disagree. This is not "metagaming" as anyone I've known has ever used the term. It is completely part of gaming, it's just a request made at the level of players, not characters. If this counts as "metagaming", then:
- Every campaign pitch is always 100% pure metagaming
- Every time the GM says "roll initiative", it is metagaming, since it's a request external to the world
- Every time a player lets you know they will be absent, they are metagaming
- Bringing in a new player is always metagaming
- Running a module you just bought is always metagaming
Etc., etc., etc. None of these are "metagaming" in any way, as far as I can tell. They're not
roleplayed actions within the world, but that doesn't make them metagaming.
Okay, so we disagree. They are all
Metagaming .
I don't understand how this relates to what I said. You simply said making clues easy to find is inherently metagaming, and that's simply false.
Metagaming is any action taken or not taken in the game purely for Real World or OOG reasons. Making clues easy for the characters to find is pure
Metagaming as it done to help the players, keep the game at a normal pace and make the game flow.
Like even based on your argument here, we can trivially see the converse. Yes, sometimes for "game flow" (pacing), we don't make a big deal out of a thing because that wouldn't be interesting. (I don't consider that even slightly "metagaming". It's just gaming. You, as GM, are making decisions about what the game should be. That cannot be metagaming, it's literally your role as GM to do that.) But sometimes, for pacing reasons, we make something hard instead! Maybe the players could just (say) sit down and read a lot of books to find a clue they need. That would be too fast, making it boring, when the GM would prefer that this scene feel mysterious and intriguing. So they spice it up: you scour the library and find nothing with the answers you seek...but you do find references to De Umbrarum Regni Novem Portis, which should have the answers the party seeks, but the last known copy is in the long-abandoned Manor de Winter...
(To be clear, I also don't consider this metagaming. But if things can be made easier for reasons you call metagaming, the exact same thing can make them harder, so we're left with "anything at all is metagaming" and that's pretty obviously wrong.)
A clue's easiness or difficulty is both a function of what is in the world, and what makes most sense to the people playing the game. That's not metagaming. It's just gaming.
Well,
metagaming does depend a lot on your game play style. As a deep immersion deep role playing(the acting kind) type of DM roughly 95% of my game multiverse is all "in game" and everything happens or does not happen for pure in game reasons. Only the small 5% do I leave open for
metagaming so that things can happen or not happen during the game.
I am never cruel (and frankly find it shocking you would call yourself not just cruel but "beyond cruel"!), nor do I think jerk players are common. But I agree that one needs to be clear that outright bad behavior won't be tolerated. I have never had an issue with this.
I'm honest.
And the number of jerks in the general population is quite high.
I have to say, I have NEVER met a DM with this attitude. Sure some are more relaxed or laid back than others. Many, experienced or new, are not that great or not nearly as great as they think they are. But ones that think the game is silly and a waste of time? You don't continue to DM with that attitude, you find "better" pursuits for your time.
Odd. I can only guess you have only met a small number of DMs?
The typical
Casual DM has very little going on for them in life. And they are desperate to get out of their house, apartment or basement. As they are not the best of people...they have few friends. And yet somehow they stumbled in to the RPG crowd. And they found a perfect spot: the DM. As the vast majority of gamers want to be players, they are more then happy to have a Cool Forever DM.
That doesn't sound like cruelty. It's just an expectation and a specific play style. Cruelty, for example, would be putting the players in uncomfortable situations for your (the DMs) amusement, and without care of theirs.
Okay, check. I've done threads about this in the past. My game is "unrated" or "beyond R", and you agree to this to play in my game.
How does that even look like? If someone is a jerk at my table, they're not at my table long (hasn't happened in a long time, honestly, I seem to game with great people). But other than not welcoming them back, what else is there?
Well, amazingly the RPG Jerk thinks set things, uses set 'buzz words' and has set feelings. This makes them easy to spot. Plus they can't really hide what they are.....simple Anti-Jerk house rules keep them away. The "unrated/beyond R" type game works wonders here: It is amazing how many players will walk away from even the suggestion of such a game....you can be sure to catch many of the jerk players too. Simple house rules like "no asking questions during the game", gets jerk players running away. As does things like "you must role play(the acting kind) in my game", sends many of the jerk players running away fast.
