Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riley37" data-source="post: 7611936" data-attributes="member: 6786839">Not exactly, no. Nor can any person can sing perfectly on pitch, and yet some humans still sing, because many of us do it well enough for entertainment purposes.Sure, there's a discrepancy between character knowledge and player knowledge. I cannot bring that gap to zero point zero, nor do I want to. That said, there's a significant difference between &quot;bought the scrolls&quot; and &quot;didn't buy the scrolls&quot;, and my imperfect, non-exact RP still falls on the side of &quot;didn't buy the scrolls&quot;... when I'm a playing a PC who knows that she's likely to encounter stone golems, and who doesn't know how useful those scrolls would be. Yes, when we actually encounter the stone golems, I the player will think &quot;too bad my PC didn't know about thunder damage&quot;, but even if some NPC had cast Detect Thoughts on my PC, that thought was not in the PC's mind *at an observable level*.Is this, in your experience, an unusual level of compartmentalization? I consider it a low bar to clear. If a player cannot (or will not) refrain from declaring character actions which act on information which their character could not possibly know, then I consider that player an unskilled and/or immature TRPGer, and I'd rather not sit at the same table.There is, however, the option of recruiting players to your table, who have *their own goal* of managing their meta gaming, in order to co-create an enjoyable story. Some players are okay with the suspension of disbelief necessary for &quot;we encounter stone golems&quot;, while disliking the suspension of disbelief necessary for &quot;the barbarian just happened, for unrelated reasons, to have some scrolls of Thunderwave, which the barbarian now hands to the wizard for immediate tactical use&quot;.I want many things, as a player. One of those things is the respect of the DM and my fellow players. The players, at the table where I play every week, would not be impressed by &quot;hey, guys, look, my barbarian character has scrolls of Thunderwave!&quot;. They would give me a disapproving side-eye, or a spoken &quot;Riley, that's crappy role-playing. We're not munchkins here&quot;. They'd rather have their PCs either win without those scrolls, or fail without those scrolls, than win by using those scrolls.The question of whether the DM suppresses that kind of meta-gaming does not often arise, at this table, because peer pressure among players suffices to discourage that kind of meta-gaming.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riley37, post: 7611936, member: 6786839"] Not exactly, no. Nor can any person can sing perfectly on pitch, and yet some humans still sing, because many of us do it well enough for entertainment purposes. Sure, there's a discrepancy between character knowledge and player knowledge. I cannot bring that gap to zero point zero, nor do I want to. That said, there's a significant difference between "bought the scrolls" and "didn't buy the scrolls", and my imperfect, non-exact RP still falls on the side of "didn't buy the scrolls"... when I'm a playing a PC who knows that she's likely to encounter stone golems, and who doesn't know how useful those scrolls would be. Yes, when we actually encounter the stone golems, I the player will think "too bad my PC didn't know about thunder damage", but even if some NPC had cast Detect Thoughts on my PC, that thought was not in the PC's mind *at an observable level*. Is this, in your experience, an unusual level of compartmentalization? I consider it a low bar to clear. If a player cannot (or will not) refrain from declaring character actions which act on information which their character could not possibly know, then I consider that player an unskilled and/or immature TRPGer, and I'd rather not sit at the same table. There is, however, the option of recruiting players to your table, who have *their own goal* of managing their meta gaming, in order to co-create an enjoyable story. Some players are okay with the suspension of disbelief necessary for "we encounter stone golems", while disliking the suspension of disbelief necessary for "the barbarian just happened, for unrelated reasons, to have some scrolls of Thunderwave, which the barbarian now hands to the wizard for immediate tactical use". I want many things, as a player. One of those things is the respect of the DM and my fellow players. The players, at the table where I play every week, would not be impressed by "hey, guys, look, my barbarian character has scrolls of Thunderwave!". They would give me a disapproving side-eye, or a spoken "Riley, that's crappy role-playing. We're not munchkins here". They'd rather have their PCs either win without those scrolls, or fail without those scrolls, than win by using those scrolls. The question of whether the DM suppresses that kind of meta-gaming does not often arise, at this table, because peer pressure among players suffices to discourage that kind of meta-gaming. [/QUOTE]

Verification