Why do you hate meta-gaming? (And what does it mean to you?)

[iserith]

I've never once gone though even a single painful mental contortion, and I use 1 all the time. So no, number 1 does not involve painful mental contortions. You might involve painful mental contortions, which causes you to be incompatible with that playstyle, but the actual playstyle does not.

Would you agree that it is easier to identify with one's character when there is parity between player and character knowledge? In other words, to play like you don't know a thing when you actually don't know a thing? And if "immersion" is at least in part identifying with one's character's thoughts, does this not make the technique more compatible with the goal of achieving "immersion?"

 

[Maxperson]

Would you agree that it is easier to identify with one's character when there is parity between player and character knowledge? In other words, to play like you don't know a thing when you actually don't know a thing?

I can't ever play like I don't know I think unless I actually know. If I don't know something, I don't know it and I am not playing at not knowing.

I also find it no easier to identify with a character when my personal lack of knowledge matches that of the PC. Knowledge doesn't play into my identifying with a character. Being able to immerse myself in that character and it's personality, as well as a consistently run game world with more realism than D&D usually offers, is what allows me to identify with the PC.

And if "immersion" is at least in part identifying with one's character's thoughts, does this not make the technique more compatible with the goal of achieving "immersion?"

When I immerse myself in my character, I don't have to really think about what he knows and doesn't know, it comes fairly naturally.

 

[iserith]

I can't ever play like I don't know I think unless I actually know. If I don't know something, I don't know it and I am not playing at not knowing.

A pedantic response in my view - you know what I mean. If you don't know what a troll's vulnerabilities are, then when you make decisions for your character, it is through the lens of not knowing. As opposed to knowing and not drawing upon that knowledge.

 

[Maxperson]

A pedantic response in my view - you know what I mean. If you don't know what a troll's vulnerabilities are, then when you make decisions for your character, it is through the lens of not knowing. As opposed to knowing and not drawing upon that knowledge.

Regardless, knowledge or lack of knowledge doesn't play into how well I identify with my character.

 

[Morlock]

I think it's the DM's job to get a feel for how "metagamey" his group is. And assuming he wants to put a stop to it, the more "metagamey" they are, the more devious he may become in his module prep. The greedy meta-gaming thief with a penchant for reading ahead and stealing treasure for himself? Man, is that guy ever cruising for a bruising. That NPC, the one who's going to betray the party? He's innocent. It's actually that other NPC, the one who's loyal in the adventure-as-written, who's the traitor.

I mean, c'mon, this whole discussion is dancing around the same conditions that have created some of the world's greatest confidence scams; greedy cheaters are the absolute best marks. They are ripe for a fall, and they'll only have themselves to blame afterward. And if they're good players aside from the meta-gaming, they'll probably enjoy the ride.

Once my players found a little shrine dedicated to a demon lord inside a dungeon they were exploring. In that shrine there was, among many other things, a pecurliar statue made of black stone and gold, which I took some time to describe because I didn't want them to think that it was "just another statue of an evil deity or whatever".
It had really no other importance in the plot but one of the players decided that, because I had described it, it *had* to be fundamental, and when it became clear that it was of no use to them he accused me to waste his time on useless details.

This is really odd. The player attempted to meta-game, falling for your "bait," and you're the bad guy? This doesn't compute. I would continue to bait him into erroneous meta-gaming until he got the point.

I am aware this is not the firs kind of example that come to mind when someone says meta-gaming, and that's why I said it was "subtle".

It's not subtle, it's erroneous. I.e., he thought he had you. He's like the greedy, cheating mark in a movie about "the great con" shaking his fist at the world after he discovers that he's duped himself.

 

[Pickles III]

I also find it no easier to identify with a character when my personal lack of knowledge matches that of the PC. Knowledge doesn't play into my identifying with a character. Being able to immerse myself in that character and it's personality, as well as a consistently run game world with more realism than D&D usually offers, is what allows me to identify with the PC.

When I immerse myself in my character, I don't have to really think about what he knows and doesn't know, it comes fairly naturally.

I've never once gone though even a single painful mental contortion, and I use 1 all the time. So no, number 1 does not involve painful mental contortions. You might involve painful mental contortions, which causes you to be incompatible with that playstyle, but the actual playstyle does not.

I do have to think constantly about what my character would think or do in a given situation based on his personality let alone his knowledge (like did was he there for that exposition or did he only over hear it at the table, should I be able to use maths or a lever to try to solve a problem. Does my backstory as a 200 year old soldier let me know about trolls vulnerabilities?

This means that like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] I tend not to bother. I try not to "spoil" monsters for the many newer players I play with even if it lead to fraught fights with paralysing ghouls or whatever but I don't sweat bringing acid & fire if I know that we're facing trolls.

Of course I forgot I had drifted away from the D&D boards. D&D is terrible at doing realism - your 18 wheeler argument falls down if PCs can take a dragon that's even bigger to the face. How do you judge realistic - by making in game comparisons or by using out of game logic?

(In D&D not CoC say - there defaulting to the real world is good as it is pretty much set in the real world)

That's because you're fine with absurd coincidence after absurd coincidence coming up in your games. Other people aren't.

I appreciate this too. I buy immersion. Personally I am happy with strong colour but I would rather enjoy things that do not jar with the tropes or genre that I am playing in. I feel the best way to avoid the coincidences is to avoid creating the situations where they are pertinent.

You can rationalise most any weird circumstance in a high fantasy game but I would rather not have to.

 

[Maxperson]

I do have to think constantly about what my character would think or do in a given situation based on his personality let alone his knowledge (like did was he there for that exposition or did he only over hear it at the table, should I be able to use maths or a lever to try to solve a problem. Does my backstory as a 200 year old soldier let me know about trolls vulnerabilities?

This means that like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] I tend not to bother. I try not to "spoil" monsters for the many newer players I play with even if it lead to fraught fights with paralysing ghouls or whatever but I don't sweat bringing acid & fire if I know that we're facing trolls.

Which is fine. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. What I find easy, you may not. What you find easy, I may not.

Of course I forgot I had drifted away from the D&D boards. D&D is terrible at doing realism - your 18 wheeler argument falls down if PCs can take a dragon that's even bigger to the face.

Which is only really true if realism is a dichotomy. It isn't a dichotomy, though. Rather it's a spectrum with utter reality on one end and absolute chaos on the other end. D&D falls closer to the realism end than it does the chaos end. It has rules that try to model reality to a degree. Swords that are edged, arrows and spears puncture, falls hurt, etc. The game reality also explains how magic and dragons make sense, so I accept those things. Some things are unrealistic but must be accepted in order for the game to function. Combat I'm looking at you on that one.

With the above, I accept X level of unrealistic, but that doesn't meant that X+1 is okay. When I get to Iserith's level, it's more like X+1000, which is intolerable for me. That I'm okay with magic and dragons doesn't in any way mean that I have to be okay with everything unrealistic.

How do you judge realistic - by making in game comparisons or by using out of game logic?

I'm not sure what you mean by in-game comparisons. Would you elaborate on that?

I appreciate this too. I buy immersion. Personally I am happy with strong colour but I would rather enjoy things that do not jar with the tropes or genre that I am playing in. I feel the best way to avoid the coincidences is to avoid creating the situations where they are pertinent.

You can rationalise most any weird circumstance in a high fantasy game but I would rather not have to.

For me, it needs to make sense with the PC in question. Going back to troll weakness (of course ), if a PC grew up near the troll moors, I wouldn't even make him roll. He would just know. A PC from far away that had some knowledge of swamps or monsters would get a fairly easy roll. A PC from the desert where trolls just don't ever go and with no background to indicate possible knowledge would not know or get a roll. I don't buy the "I overheard it in a tavern" justification.

 

[Lanefan]

Would you agree that it is easier to identify with one's character when there is parity between player and character knowledge? In other words, to play like you don't know a thing when you actually don't know a thing?

Yes, I'd agree with this.

And if "immersion" is at least in part identifying with one's character's thoughts, does this not make the technique more compatible with the goal of achieving "immersion?"

Yes it does, which is why everyone's first campaign is often the most vivid and best-remembered later.

The problem arises when you-as-player are on your 5th or 7th or 16th campaign and - as player - you've seen a lot of it before; yet you're expected to play your low-level character using the poor knowledge level a low-level character would have. Players (usually) naturally resist doing something intentionally "wrong" if they know it to be so, even though that's what the character with its more limited knowledge would do and and learn the hard way, and that's the hard part to overcome.

It puts a lot of work into the DM's lap if she's expected to change up all the standards for each campaign; this probably isn't a viable long-term solution. That said, the one thing DMs can easily do before starting an adventure is ask if any of the players have been through it (or worse, run it as DM) before; and if anyone says "yes" then pull out a different adventure. (in my own case my selection of useable adventures is getting more and more limited because of this)

Lanefan

 

[smbakeresq]

Yes, I'd agree with this.
Yes it does, which is why everyone's first campaign is often the most vivid and best-remembered later.

The problem arises when you-as-player are on your 5th or 7th or 16th campaign and - as player - you've seen a lot of it before; yet you're expected to play your low-level character using the poor knowledge level a low-level character would have. Players (usually) naturally resist doing something intentionally "wrong" if they know it to be so, even though that's what the character with its more limited knowledge would do and and learn the hard way, and that's the hard part to overcome.

It puts a lot of work into the DM's lap if she's expected to change up all the standards for each campaign; this probably isn't a viable long-term solution. That said, the one thing DMs can easily do before starting an adventure is ask if any of the players have been through it (or worse, run it as DM) before; and if anyone says "yes" then pull out a different adventure. (in my own case my selection of useable adventures is getting more and more limited because of this)

Lanefan

The prior campaigns is the issue, if the players make it one. I play in an older gaming group, almost everyone has started in 1st edition. Everyone knows almost everything, but we don't have a problem separating our knowledge from the knowledge of the character. The hardest thing for players to do is play a character with low intelligence or wisdom, or to a lesser extent charisma. Its worse then the evil-hating neutrals problem. The way to solve this though is to realize the DM is a player too.

Your DM is in it for enjoyment also. He isn't a paid referee. His fun is you having trouble overcoming his strategies. That's why its tough to be a DM, the game is set up so you are designed to "lose." That's why when we get a new player in the group I explain to them that you have to "give" the DM something in your character to work with, something to play off of. A weakness to exploit, either in character build or playstyle.

Meta-gaming ruins the experience for everyone, but really for the hardest worker at the table, the DM. If you do so your just a skell, IMO. And you deserve the DM pounding you with trolls wearing rings of fire resistance or some such thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Your DM is in it for enjoyment also. He isn't a paid referee. His fun is you having trouble overcoming his strategies. That's why its tough to be a DM, the game is set up so you are designed to "lose." That's why when we get a new player in the group I explain to them that you have to "give" the DM something in your character to work with, something to play off of. A weakness to exploit, either in character build or playstyle.

I disagree. My fun is not in the players having trouble overcoming my strategies. My fun is in seeing the player enjoy overcoming them, however they over come them. If I have something set up that I think will be tough and a player/PC comes up with a brilliant strategy that I didn't think of that turns it into a cake walk, I'm thrilled. They did something unexpected and awesome. Similarly, if I have thought of 10 ways that a challenge could be overcome and the players/PCs don't think of the easier ones and an easy challenge becomes hard, that's also good. Players enjoy overcoming difficult challenges as well.

Meta-gaming ruins the experience for everyone, but really for the hardest worker at the table, the DM.

Just change that to metagaming can ruin the experience for everyone and I agree with that. Some people and groups don't have an issue with metagaming and there's nothing ruined when they do it.