Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7612075" data-attributes="member: 4937">I have said before that I have no proposition filter on actions declared for OOC reasons.  I never abuse a player for metagaming or using OOC character knowledge, and I tend to believe that if any metagame knowledge is a problem for the game, then that problem was created by the GM.   So, I'm pretty extreme on the end of the spectrum that says, "It's not wrong to metagame."And I don't think your example with gunpowder and muskets, which is a stock example for why using player knowledge is wrong, is or should be a problem in play.  There are so many obvious solutions to the issue that don't require playing the PC that as an example, I find it pretty hollow.a) Just because you have the ability to recite things, doesn't mean you have the hand skills.  Players may have a solid understanding of how to create gunpowder (though IME that's really rare), but just because they do doesn't mean the character has the craftsmanship to accomplish the player's propositions.   A player may have a solid idea of how to perform carpentry, but describing how do joinery and actually doing it is like the difference between watching a youtube video and actually doing it.   Anyone that has done home crafts based on watching a youtube video knows that watching the video may help, but it won't make you a master plumber, carpenter, blacksmith or seamstress just having watched a video.   It takes tons of practice, and as such appropriate skill checks can be and ought to be called for.  b) Just because you have great knowledge of real world physics, doesn't mean that the fantasy world will exactly correspond to the real world.  In a world with magic, four elements, and all the rest, there is no reason to suspect that knowledge of real world chemistry necessarily makes you into a great fantasy alchemist.   Not only may your real world knowledge fail to work in a fantasy world, but it may actually be actively dangerous.   Thus, again, appropriate skill and knowledge checks can and ought to be called for, even if the player has a PhD in chemical engineering.   Rather quickly, you can start undermining the player's expertise by having character knowledge checks inform the player that his perceptions are not correct for the world.   If the player's motivation is a desire to win easily and dominate the game world, he's very likely to lose interest in the project.c) Building up the infrastructure to produce gunpowder and musketry is in and of itself a potentially interesting campaign, and if the group collectively is interested in this, the simplest thing to do might simply be let them play that campaign and start throwing complications for them to solve.   If the group really is interested in it, then everyone has fun.   And if it is just one player stroking his own ego in a dysfunctional manner, then his spotlight stealing behavior is likely to lead to peer pressure to drop this storyline and just let the "real game" go on.   At that point, the problem is revealed to an OOC character problem, and it's best to not try to deal with player problems IC.d) In a world with magic in it in which you have full control over the rules of resolution, flintlock musketry is unlikely to be game breaking.  The player not only has to build a character that can build muskets, but which also is skilled in their use, and the result is still not likely to be more powerful than simply building a wizard or other spell-caster.   Nor are the armies of musketeers likely to be all that impressive in a world with wands of fireballs.   You suggest that as a player you would generally not find those victories satisfying, as if in fact going the route of trying to recreate modern technology in a fantasy setting is easy mode.   But I think on the other hand it's likely to prove much harder than just gaining XP and leveling up, and if the motivation of the player was to figure out the "cheat mode" of the game so that he could win without effort, the bigger problem you are likely to have at the table is that the player will be frustrated and angry when his "clever idea" which is anything but clever or creative doesn't lead to the plaudits and respect he was actually seeking.   If the issue is you have a player that wants to "win" and doesn't want to be challenged, then the problem you are going to have is that player hasn't really thought through his plan as much as he thinks he has and then he's going to be angry that you don't just validate that yes he does win.   And fundamentally, that's the real problem with gunpowder.   It doesn't break the game.  But a player whose goal of play is Validation and whose unconscious plan for achieving that is having a GM that just says "Yes" all the time, and which in his mind is forced to concede just how brilliant and unbeatable the player is, is going to be angry when you don't validate him as brilliant all the dang time.</blockquote>

Verification