I've been gaming a LONG time and met many, many DMs. Home game, conventions, in person, online. Many different DMs.
And you have never met any bad ones?
Interesting, I actually think some of those would attract jerk players.
It is really the combination that does it.
Not asking questions, for example. Jerks don't need to ask questions, they're acting for their own amusement and could care less about the rest of the table or what the DM is doing. Someone who asks questions is generally doing so because they want to make the experience better for the table. I'm not talking about rules lawyers, I'm talking about genuine questions that help resolve possible confusion.
I find that mostly jerks ask questions. It is amazing how many jerk players won't even play in my game because they can't ask questions. The vast majority of players asking questions are simply not playing attention.
And I've met plenty of "role players" who are jerks and again twisting the game for their own amusement at the expense of the table.
So you have met bad gamers?
Again, I don't accept this definition as phrased because it makes all sorts of things "metagaming" when they trivially obviously aren't.
You don't like the definition that
metagaming is an action taken or not taken in the game only for real life OOG reasons. That is fine.
Personally I think you're getting massively hung up on calling this "metagaming" as though that were in any way useful. It isn't. The fault is that the player is being a jerk. Calling it "metagaming" adds nothing except a distracting discussion about what "metagaming" means.
Metagaming is doing something in a RPG for real world reasons. I don't think that takes away from anything.
If the spell fails and everything you know says it shouldn't fail, that's a dead giveaway.
I guess this is dependent on Game rules. Most games don't have a rule that says "you you cast a spell and it fails, you immediately known the reason it fails in detail"
It's not a huge jump. The fact that the spell failed at all is a HUGE red flag.
Maybe this is just a difference in Game worlds. In my game, players expect their spells to fail often. And something like a divination spell on or about a king very often. But if you have a world where every player action like a spell nearly always works, then yes it would be a huge red flag.
Not one portion of that reflects what you described. "Relaxed" does not mean being callously indifferent. It does not mean being antagonistic to
knowing the rules. That's a HUGE leap completely unjustified by the word "casual". I'm not the only person saying this either. Your use of the word
does not match how people usually use the word.
When I hear a "casual" GM, I think it's going to be:
- This GM won't get mad about small rules errors. They'll let an issue slide and just make sure we don't make the same mistake in the future.
- When something doesn't go according to plan, they'll laugh it off, or see it as a learning experience
- Cracking jokes and being silly is okay in this group, because the GM isn't overly-serious
- The GM might make a mistake from time to time, but they won't get upset if you tell them about it
Your so-called "Casual" GM is actively malicious, hates the very idea of rules, and is actively capricious and rude. As another poster already said, your description makes them sound like they're hostile to the very
idea of being GM. That's NOT what "casual" means!
Well, this make sense. Everyone uses words differently.
What you are describing to be is a Laid Back or Easy Going DM. Or even a Silly DM
Your use of the word "metagaming" is so loose, it describes at least three quarters of all actions taken as a result of play. When the vast majority of gaming is metagaming, don't you think your standard has become so loose as to be meaningless?
I think the part here is what kind of game you run.
If your RPG game play is "
Just a Game" then nearly everything done or not done during the game is a game action done for the game. The DM has NPC Bob say set words to advance the plot of the game, for example.
If your game is a
Simulated Fictional World then nearly everything that happens or does not happen during a game is part of the fictional world. The DM role players the character Bob according to who and what the character is.
How can that be so? If you design a monster, you're metagaming. If you write a plot, you're metagaming. If you make a decision for an NPC, you're metagaming.
By your standard, every time you decide to do something as GM, you're metagaming.
Your going too far here. Just creating a game element is not metagaming. For it to be
Metagaming you would need a real world reason for what your doing or not doing.
A
Buddy DM that makes a scary looking but weak monster, because they don't want to risk killing any PCs, is
Metagaming.
Actually, the number of jerks in the general population is quite low, and statistical evidence backs me up on this. Despite the fact that our population is steadily increasing, even with the COVID bump driving crime up, average violent crime per capita has gone down every decade for over a century. Deaths due to violence of any kind have gone down over the past century relative to the previous, even when you count BOTH WORLD WARS.
The fact is, the world isn't nearly as full of jerks as you think it is.
I guess this will depend on your definition of "jerk" and where you draw the line, and maybe a bit on where you live.
Gonna be honest here Bloodtide, this doesn't sound at all representative. Like...this sounds like you're talking about a small group of very specific people that you know in real life. It's not a common archetype.
I base it on years of gaming at Malls, Libraries and Rec Centers. And years of home play too. At my low point...right now Summertime....I only play three games a week. Come fall, that number goes up to eight.
I think you are contributing to the very thing you think you're fighting against.
Trust me, it does not work out like you think.
The first of these two is also going to drive away far more non-jerk players than jerk ones, as it communicates to players that your concern is control, that all you care about is controlling what they do, not enjoying a good experience with the group. The second is equivocal. I've heard plenty of stories about jerk GMs who use that standard to screw over their players completely unnecessarily, basically just to delight in screwing them over.
As you can see from your own description, my house rules work just fine.
