Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7073675" data-attributes="member: 6778044">That's not entirely the case in 5e, and hasn't been for a while. Mechanics like bardic inspiration, luck, and inspiration, which allow you to alter the facts after the initial roll are not reflected by an in-game reality. Even worse (RAW) is the fact that not only is the fighter the only class that can theoretically attempt to trip an opponent, they can also only do it a limited amount of times before they forget how to do it, at least until they have an hour to rest. There are plenty of other examples, both in 5e and earlier editions.In most published adventures, and also by a lot of DM's approach with a home campaign, the number of ogres is directly correlated with the (expected) level of the party. This is further encouraged by the removal of the "# appearing" stat in the MM. In the past your suggested approach was better supported, but now the default approach that is laid out in the DMG is all about designing appropriate challenges, and even more so, an appropriate day of challenges, with some easy, some hard, and some just right. It's the Goldilocks school of adventure design.To go back to your assertion that meta-gaming is objectively bad - the RPG community, heck, let's just narrow it down to the Enworld community, can't even agree on an objective definition of meta-gaming. Character creation itself is meta-gaming. Particularly if you're an optimizer and planning ahead. You're making choices for your future based on rules, and not the fiction. If you choose to multi-class into a monk, how do you propose to do so if you never meet a monk to learn from, and there aren't any books to teach you? I'm not a huge fan of planning out your character in this way, but I can't say it's objectively bad.In my case I've made it clear that I expect and encourage my players to do exactly what others here feel is "objectively bad meta-gaming." I encourage them to read every Forgotten Realms book there is. Novel, game supplement, etc. Why? Because I want them to know what their world is like. I want a common shared experience that we can reference in the game. I want player knowledge to equal character knowledge. We'll find ways to work it in.I alter things enough that many of the things they know end up feeling like second-hand knowledge, rumors and myth. The meta-gaming I object to is examples that have been made in various threads where the characters don't act like people, because they are considering the rules. Like when players decide to kill somebody (or let them die) because resurrection magic exists and they can just bring them back. Or one thread where the players decided to let the villain kill the innocent townsperson because they thought they would have at least three rounds of death saves before dying. It doesn't matter that the rule doesn't work that way for NPCs because they thought it did.In other words, the meta-gaming I find objectionable is when the rules interfere with or change the fiction. One of the kinds I don't care about, is trying to separate player knowledge from character knowledge. That's not to say that there are times where it's inappropriate for some player knowledge to not be transferred to the characters. But that's usually things that a) don't exist - such as complex machines, firearms, and other such things; and b) story knowledge gained from sitting around the table, but the character is not present for. If the party is split up, and one of the chapters in the other group is dropped and dying, it would annoy me if the cleric in the other group suddenly dropped everything to go save the character.However, I don't have a problem with players that are sitting at the table while a scene unfolds where their character is not present chiming in with ideas and advice. And I usually don't separate players at the table when the characters are split up because we assume that the other characters will relay whatever information they have learned or things they've experienced to the others when they return. It not only speeds up play, but because it's so easy for folks to forget imaginary things, it helps avoid me having to remind them of things.If there is something that really should be a secret, then I either separate players, or pass notes. Good role-playing doesn't exclude meta-gaming. You aren't present in the situation with the character. You are making decisions for the character as if you were the character. They don't know everything you know. But you, as a person, don't know everything the character sees, hears, smells, etc. You also don't know all of their experiences and everything they know. Sometimes the DM knows what they know, and not you. All of the activity around deciding what the character knows and doesn't is meta-gaming.The current combat system, with turn-based initiative and action economy practically screams for people to meta-game. Characters act in 6-second slices, and make decisions based on not losing their Action this round, instead of thinking across rounds. They move into certain positions that give them advantage, all while the rest of the participants stand still patiently waiting for you to move your 30 feet, use your Action, and possibly a Bonus Action before they take their turn. So a rogue can move 30 feet, attack, and move another 30 feet with the other creature not doing a thing at all. That's a direct application of the out-of-game-factors writing the in-game reality. And actually, that's another type of meta-gaming I hate. So I changed it.There are loads of out-of-game factors that determine the in-game reality. In your case, you seem to be referring to a more narrow definition of meta-gaming, the one where the player chooses to use knowledge that the character does not know and has the character act upon it. While there are certainly blatant examples of this, it often rears its head when the DM or another player decides that the character wouldn't know something. The classic example is fire and trolls. You decide that your character knows trolls are vulnerable to fire, and the DM objects, saying you're never fought  a troll, you don't know that. If it were my character, I'd call BS on that. If I'm anywhere within 1,000 miles (probably more) of where trolls currently live and attack people, in a world where people have been attacked by trolls for tens-of-thousands, if not hundreds-of-thousands of years; I know trolls are vulnerable to fire. Period. Was it meta-gaming? Well that depends on who you ask. If the DM decides he doesn't agree with that reasoning, then it is. But I, as the player, say no. Part of the question is, "where is the line between what the player gets to decide what the character knows, and what the DM gets to decide?"With no set line, then there is no set line as to what is meta-gaming (in this narrow definition) and what isn't.</blockquote>

Verification