Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 1993933" data-attributes="member: 2486">There exists the conundrum of what I call &quot;constructive metagaming&quot;.&nbsp; This is the dilemma of where pursuing the goals and intentions of the PCs mean that the game goes badly awry.&nbsp; For example, in the group where I play, we were deeply suspicious of a new PC replacing the player's old dead one.&nbsp; Whilst it may have been the case that the PCs would not let him into the group, &quot;constructive metagaming&quot; meant that we did.&nbsp; Otherwise, he'd have to discard his character and make a new one, missing out on most of the session.&nbsp; Conversely, &quot;constructive metagaming&quot; can apply to important plotlines and so forth.&nbsp; If the DM makes an accidental blunder that would ruin the whole adventure, or campaign, the players can &quot;constructively metagame&quot; to ignore it, even if the PCs would pick up on the error.But this isn't &quot;constructive metagaming&quot; at all.&nbsp; PC deaths happen, and tough.&nbsp; Whining that you don't get a resurrection is childish, and he can simply accept the reincarnation or roll up a new character.&nbsp; Before raising the dead is a viable solution, does the DM deliberately pull his punches to never get a PC death, on the theory that it might ruin the fun of the dead character?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; If anything, the players have *more* fun due to the suspension of disbelief and the adrenaline rush of combat where the PC could actually die.&nbsp; If there is never a PC death, or if there exists the &quot;revolving-door&quot; approach to combat, it loses part of its excitement.&nbsp; There is &quot;constructive metagaming&quot;, and there is moaning because something bad happened to your character.&nbsp; The DM should occasionally hint at the former, but only when the situation absolutely calls for it, but should rebuff the latter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Al, post: 1993933, member: 2486"] There exists the conundrum of what I call "constructive metagaming". This is the dilemma of where pursuing the goals and intentions of the PCs mean that the game goes badly awry. For example, in the group where I play, we were deeply suspicious of a new PC replacing the player's old dead one. Whilst it may have been the case that the PCs would not let him into the group, "constructive metagaming" meant that we did. Otherwise, he'd have to discard his character and make a new one, missing out on most of the session. Conversely, "constructive metagaming" can apply to important plotlines and so forth. If the DM makes an accidental blunder that would ruin the whole adventure, or campaign, the players can "constructively metagame" to ignore it, even if the PCs would pick up on the error. But this isn't "constructive metagaming" at all. PC deaths happen, and tough. Whining that you don't get a resurrection is childish, and he can simply accept the reincarnation or roll up a new character. Before raising the dead is a viable solution, does the DM deliberately pull his punches to never get a PC death, on the theory that it might ruin the fun of the dead character? No. If anything, the players have *more* fun due to the suspension of disbelief and the adrenaline rush of combat where the PC could actually die. If there is never a PC death, or if there exists the "revolving-door" approach to combat, it loses part of its excitement. There is "constructive metagaming", and there is moaning because something bad happened to your character. The DM should occasionally hint at the former, but only when the situation absolutely calls for it, but should rebuff the latter. [/QUOTE]

Verification