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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 9754451" data-attributes="member: 6787503">Nor does it necessarily not correspond. You're assuming that when you call the player using their knowledge "metagaming".I have always in this thread been talking about knowledge acquired by a player through gameplay. In my first post I talked about an encounter with a dragon of a particular color from which a player could learn the type of breath weapon to expect from dragons of that color. I believe it was you who then began talking about players looking up (and memorizing) monster statistics in the rulebooks and other such questionable behavior which was expressly forbidden by the designers of color coded dragons precisely because it violates the skilled play paradigm I've just described. Likewise, they didn't care about establishing how other characters belonging to a player that had acquired such knowledge had learned of it because the important thing under that paradigm is honoring the player skill that has been earned through gameplay.I wouldn't bother because I don't care about metagaming.I'm saying you misidentified it. It's only metagaming if the character lacks the knowledge being used, and you haven't show that. You just assumed it, so you could call it "metagaming".Likewise, they could very easily know many of the same things you do, react to things similarly, express themselves similarly, make similar decisions, etc. It's all within the realm of possibility, so whose job is it to police the players in the play of their characters?Right, the DM could change the colors of the dragons if they have concerns about metagaming. Metagaming is not why we color-code dragons!When did you think color coded dragons were invented?</blockquote>

Verification