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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9733489" data-attributes="member: 6790260">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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every campaign pitch is always 100% pure metagaming</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every time the GM says "roll initiative", it is metagaming, since it's a request external to the world</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every time a player lets you know they will be absent, they are metagaming</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bringing in a new player is always metagaming</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Running a module you just bought is always metagaming</li> </ul>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.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.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.It's not nearly as big to me. A well-executed lie is still a lie.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.</blockquote>

Verification