Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 4032439" data-attributes="member: 15999">From the OP: &quot;But of course the other PC's are going forward and fighting the battle so he reluctantly goes along&quot;What would have happened if the PC had just fled?&nbsp; Would the rest of the party have died?&nbsp; In which case the other players would chew him out for getting them killed, and he could argue that he was right to flee.&nbsp; Would the party have won?&nbsp; In which case the player sees that his PC's involvement was irrelevant and unnecessary, and likely suspects the DM of fudging things.Some styles of D&amp;D require a great deal of metagaming.&nbsp; In many campaigns, players are supposed to make decisions that their characters would not, in order to make sure that the DM's preparation isn't wasted or the other players' fun isn't ruined.&nbsp; I can certainly see a player resenting being forced (or strongly encouraged) to metagame.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's possible that within a group one player could take the tack &quot;We'll look at risks based on what our PCs know and act accordingly,&quot; while another takes the position &quot;We're the main characters and we're supposed to win.&quot;&nbsp; Neither position is really &quot;wrong,&quot; but they're very different gaming styles.&nbsp; And it's possible that some DMs could take the position &quot;How can they even consider that I would throw them into a fight they couldn't win&quot; and others ask &quot;Why do they always refuse to even consider retreating when clearly outmatched?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 4032439, member: 15999"] From the OP: "But of course the other PC's are going forward and fighting the battle so he reluctantly goes along" What would have happened if the PC had just fled? Would the rest of the party have died? In which case the other players would chew him out for getting them killed, and he could argue that he was right to flee. Would the party have won? In which case the player sees that his PC's involvement was irrelevant and unnecessary, and likely suspects the DM of fudging things. Some styles of D&D require a great deal of metagaming. In many campaigns, players are supposed to make decisions that their characters would not, in order to make sure that the DM's preparation isn't wasted or the other players' fun isn't ruined. I can certainly see a player resenting being forced (or strongly encouraged) to metagame. It's possible that within a group one player could take the tack "We'll look at risks based on what our PCs know and act accordingly," while another takes the position "We're the main characters and we're supposed to win." Neither position is really "wrong," but they're very different gaming styles. And it's possible that some DMs could take the position "How can they even consider that I would throw them into a fight they couldn't win" and others ask "Why do they always refuse to even consider retreating when clearly outmatched?" [/QUOTE]

Verification