Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 8404799" data-attributes="member: 6669384">My own thought on the meta-gamer:&nbsp; A micro-version of that is the classic &quot;Check the Chest&quot; scenario.&nbsp; The party Rogue has the skills needed to check the treasure chest/hidden compartment for traps, and to open it.Everyone else stands clear, to avoid the area-damage that some traps trigger.&nbsp; But, as soon as the chest is opened, everyone is somehow there, having mysteriously teleported in front of the party Rogue, starts demanding to know what's inside.&nbsp; They're somehow there, ahead of the guy who was right there.The only difference between this scenario and the &quot;He took 16 points&quot; setup is the distance involved.&nbsp; A matter of scale, not principle.What is different is the intent:&nbsp; The treasure chest scenario is driven by greed and/or curiosity, while the other may be more action/adrenaline junky.Neither one is necessarily &quot;adversarial&quot;, in that the player isn't trying to beat the DM or player.I was running a super-hero game one time.&nbsp; I started by asking each of the players where their characters were.&nbsp; One said, &quot;I'm in my recording studio&quot;.&nbsp; One said, &quot;Probably stuck in traffic&quot;.&nbsp; Another was at the gym.&nbsp; One was consulting with the team lawyer.When I announced that something was happening at the team base, it suddenly turned out that the recording studio was at the base.&nbsp; So was the meeting with the lawyer. Wanna guess where the gym was?My own fault, in a way:&nbsp; I asked where they were, and they told me what they were doing instead.Kind of shot my scenario in the foot.&nbsp; The players didn't intend to be &quot;adversarial&quot;, more opportunistic.&nbsp; But it still ruined a planned story line, and that's the real problem with adversarial cases.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 8404799, member: 6669384"] My own thought on the meta-gamer: A micro-version of that is the classic "Check the Chest" scenario. The party Rogue has the skills needed to check the treasure chest/hidden compartment for traps, and to open it. Everyone else stands clear, to avoid the area-damage that some traps trigger. But, as soon as the chest is opened, everyone is somehow there, having mysteriously teleported in front of the party Rogue, starts demanding to know what's inside. They're somehow there, ahead of the guy who was right there. The only difference between this scenario and the "He took 16 points" setup is the distance involved. A matter of scale, not principle. What is different is the intent: The treasure chest scenario is driven by greed and/or curiosity, while the other may be more action/adrenaline junky. Neither one is necessarily "adversarial", in that the player isn't trying to beat the DM or player. I was running a super-hero game one time. I started by asking each of the players where their characters were. One said, "I'm in my recording studio". One said, "Probably stuck in traffic". Another was at the gym. One was consulting with the team lawyer. When I announced that something was happening at the team base, it suddenly turned out that the recording studio was at the base. So was the meeting with the lawyer. Wanna guess where the gym was? My own fault, in a way: I asked where they were, and they told me what they were doing instead. Kind of shot my scenario in the foot. The players didn't intend to be "adversarial", more opportunistic. But it still ruined a planned story line, and that's the real problem with adversarial cases. [/QUOTE]

Verification