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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3236974" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, I get that.  A player of mediocre with a character with a high intelligence should be able to solve a chess puzzle or a riddle with a hand wave.. I mean an intelligence check, rather than relying on the ability of the player.  Just because a DM has a more experienced chess player than himself as a player, doesn't mean that every NPC should lose to that PC in a game of chess.  But...You recognize of course that role playing is itself 'meta-game' by such a strict definition?  Having a conversation between a PC and an NPC conducted by the player is metagaming for the same reason that solving a riddle or having a game of chess played by the player rather than the character is matagaming - it relies on player ability rather than character ability (here charisma rather than intelligence).  To avoid this, instead of conversations between PC's and NPC's, you would always have to have and only have conversations between players and game masters.   "Player: I attempt to improve the merchant's attitude to my character.  *dice clatter*DM: Ok, the merchant likes you more now.  He informs your character that he is now eligible for a 10% discount.Player: My character informs the merchant that he would like to purchase a longsword."For that matter, even the above exchange is 'meta-gaming' by the same strict definition and reasoning.  The character's goals should depend heavily on the character's wisdom and discernment, not on the player's wisdom and discernment.   So maybe the above should be:"DM: Make my wisdom check to determine if your character knows to try to haggle."Player:  *dice clatter*  Alright, a 13.  Even with the -2 penalty for low wisdom, that's an 11.DM: Good enough.  You can now enter the negotiation phase and attempt to influence the merchant.Player:  I'll try to use diplomacy.. *dice clatter* ...a 9, with +4, so a 13.DM: The merchant informs your character that he is now eligible for a 10% discount on the wares.Player:  Great, I'll attempt to purchase something useful.  *dice clatter*  Ut oh... a 4.  DM: The merchant successfully steers you into buying something frivolous.  *dice clatter*  You now own a lace hankerchief.  Deduct 10 g.p. from your resources.Player:  I try to use good judgment again *dice clatter*... an 8.DM: Not quite good enough.  Your character is satisfied with his useless purchase.  You can make another attempt in 24 hours to buy a decent sword, or after you next fail an attack roll in mortal combat which ever comes first.  No roll to determine your characters current destination..."A little bit silly and yes I think there is a kernel of something that might be fun in that if it was kept in proportion, but even that is metagaming by the strict definition because first the player was always positively motivated, and secondly the upper limit on the chacter's wisdom was still how well the player played and made the best use of the rules to obtain the game goals.But a good roleplaying game session is not necessarily about obtaining any sort of game goal.  It's a false assumption to assume that everyone at the table is principally motivated by the acquisition of game resources.  For one thing, that's certainly NOT why the DM is playing the game.</blockquote>

Verification