Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7611941" data-attributes="member: 4937">Is it possible to provide examples where the obvious skillful move is known by the player?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; Can a skilled player choose when Actor stance is more appropriate than Author stance based on evaluating their own motivations?&nbsp; Probably so.&nbsp;&nbsp; But the real question for me here isn't player skill, but whether deploying a proposition filter that stops a player from metagaming is skilled play by the GM.&nbsp; I'm suggesting that it isn't and that there are strong limits to the ability of a GM or player to abide by a &quot;no metagaming&quot; rule.&nbsp;&nbsp; However bad unskillful play by the player may be, the proposed remedy is worse.Let's move the earth elementals example back one step.&nbsp;&nbsp; A player character knows that they are going to encounter earth elementals and it's established by some process of play that that character shouldn't know anything about earth elementals.&nbsp;&nbsp; So now the player offers up the following IC proposition to the other players, &quot;I don't know anything about earth elementals, and I don't think we should go face them without learning something about them.&nbsp; The sound magical and I'm not even sure a stone can bleed.&nbsp; I don't want to try to kill a rock with a sword.&nbsp; Let's find a wizard or a sage that might know something about earth elementals and see what we can learn about them.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Now, is this metagaming?&nbsp; Possibly, but now the player is engaged in a more sophisticated Author stance.&nbsp; His motivation OOC might be that he wants to get Thunderwave scrolls, but he's offering a plausible in game explanation for his character's actions.&nbsp;&nbsp; Should this be stopped as an act of metagaming?&nbsp; Would this deserve side-eye from his fellow partipants?And how do you know that, if the player was also ignorant, he wouldn't offer the same proposition?&nbsp; How can the player know whether, were he truly ignorant, he might offer the same proposition?Sure, I think there are times when a player should try to ignore his OOC knowledge and play the character in a proper Actor stance based on what he thinks the character would do based on his IC knowledge.&nbsp;&nbsp; Heck, as a GM, I'm called to do this all the time, however imperfectly I can do it.&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;If I didn't know the PC's weaknesses, would I still use this sort of strategy?&nbsp; Would I still have cast this defensive spell before starting the encounter?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; As a GM, I hold myself to not metagaming against the players at a much higher and more rigid standard than I would ever hold the players too.&nbsp;&nbsp; However my points remain.&nbsp;&nbsp; Metagaming isn't always bad.&nbsp; Metagaming by the players is usually the GM's fault.&nbsp;&nbsp; And there are much better ways to deal with a metagaming problem than putting up a proposition filter that amounts to choosing what a PC is going to do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7611941, member: 4937"] Is it possible to provide examples where the obvious skillful move is known by the player? Sure. Can a skilled player choose when Actor stance is more appropriate than Author stance based on evaluating their own motivations? Probably so. But the real question for me here isn't player skill, but whether deploying a proposition filter that stops a player from metagaming is skilled play by the GM. I'm suggesting that it isn't and that there are strong limits to the ability of a GM or player to abide by a "no metagaming" rule. However bad unskillful play by the player may be, the proposed remedy is worse. Let's move the earth elementals example back one step. A player character knows that they are going to encounter earth elementals and it's established by some process of play that that character shouldn't know anything about earth elementals. So now the player offers up the following IC proposition to the other players, "I don't know anything about earth elementals, and I don't think we should go face them without learning something about them. The sound magical and I'm not even sure a stone can bleed. I don't want to try to kill a rock with a sword. Let's find a wizard or a sage that might know something about earth elementals and see what we can learn about them." Now, is this metagaming? Possibly, but now the player is engaged in a more sophisticated Author stance. His motivation OOC might be that he wants to get Thunderwave scrolls, but he's offering a plausible in game explanation for his character's actions. Should this be stopped as an act of metagaming? Would this deserve side-eye from his fellow partipants? And how do you know that, if the player was also ignorant, he wouldn't offer the same proposition? How can the player know whether, were he truly ignorant, he might offer the same proposition? Sure, I think there are times when a player should try to ignore his OOC knowledge and play the character in a proper Actor stance based on what he thinks the character would do based on his IC knowledge. Heck, as a GM, I'm called to do this all the time, however imperfectly I can do it. "If I didn't know the PC's weaknesses, would I still use this sort of strategy? Would I still have cast this defensive spell before starting the encounter?" As a GM, I hold myself to not metagaming against the players at a much higher and more rigid standard than I would ever hold the players too. However my points remain. Metagaming isn't always bad. Metagaming by the players is usually the GM's fault. And there are much better ways to deal with a metagaming problem than putting up a proposition filter that amounts to choosing what a PC is going to do. [/QUOTE]

Verification