|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 12:31PM
#141
|
|
|
Also crimsyn, while I cannot account for your feelings in the matter, I have no problem saying that it is entirely possible at the time of my reply I was in a state of mind less than conducive to receiving your post as you intended. Thank you for having the stones to go on and reiterate your points and to allow me to make mine clearer to you.
I hold no ill will towards you. And while recognizing I have no control over you, sincerely hope that sentiment can be mutual.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 12:33PM
#142
|
|
|
Iserith if you don't mind me summing up what you're trying to say.
Someone sits down to play a game, any game for that matter, they are looking for some form of enjoyment from the time we spent involved in that game.
If another individual acts in a manner that upsets the original person they have some options regarding the situation.
Try to talk it out with the other person, usually as a way to convince them to refrain from the activity. This can work depending on how agreeable the other individual is, but as it requires them to change is not directly in control of the person being bothered by the activity.
Try to understand and accept the activity. This is directly in control of the individual that is bothered by the activity. If they can accept it for what it is, then the problem goes away.
Seperate either the original individual or the offending person from the game. This is all dependant upon the social context of the individuals and their gaming group, but is an option as well.
I'm sure there are other options as well, and derivatives of the above, but overall the easiest solution is the one that is controled by the offended person rather than the person doing the offending.
I should make note that there are plenty of activities that are considered taboo, and generally tend to get people ejected immediately, but that's defined by the scope of society and the group rather than something the individual feels.
Bottom line: It's easier to just learn to accept Green Eggs and Ham, than to convince those who eat it that it's horrible and they shouldn't.
Yes, that's it in a nutshell. Though I take it one step further and suggest that even though the notion of "metagaming BAD!" is very clearly a preference, it's a puzzling one. Metagaming exists. It cannot be stopped or eradicated. Even games populated with people who are all unified in their opposition to metagaming has metagaming in it and people acting upon it, often unconsciously. So dwelling on it, guarding against it, changing your game in subtle or unsubtle ways to avoid it... all of these things are a big waste of time in my opinion and, taken to any extreme, actually harmful to the game experience.
It's better then to accept that it's a thing and it's not in your control... except where it concerns your own perceptions. To that end, it's simply easier to give up worrying about it and to use it to the benefit of the game.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 1:39PM
#143
|
|
|
Iserith, my contention is merely that the "bad" comes from the player reaction when/if their expectation, based on metagaming a given situation, is not met.
In other words, it is the maturity or immaturity of that reaction that is the issue at hand as it applies to the concept of metagaming being used as a reinforcement for that reaction. The "that's not fair because...." response.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 1:57PM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
Now you're getting incredibly existential. I'm going to use a real-world situation here with similarities to dealing with this type of meta-gamer.
Yes, I could theoretically say that is MY problem if I am ticked off when I am in the middle of reading an excellent mystery novel and someone tells me "The butler did it." I can choose or not choose to be upset by another's behavior. Counseling 101. I got that.
And yes, I can keep reading the book, so it isn't a TOTAL loss. I can garner enjoyment out of the characters, the skillful use of language, and so on. I can continue to remain quite happy. This does not have to make me angry, upset or frustrated. When someone steals my wallet, I'll give them my car. I'll be much happier, perhaps.
However... no matter how amicably I choose to react to the behavior of this person, this spoiler-of-books' behavior is still in poor form.
Could you give me an example that actually involves playing D&D? ALSO, in your new example, could you do it in such a way that the "offending" player isn't actually just being a jerk, and would be considered as such by any outside observer who doesn't know the first thing about D&D?
Yes, there are times when meta-gaming can be used in a non-jerk way. I don't think that's where people have an issue. As an example of what he have a problem with is largely situational and comes up with a certain specificity I'll try to pinpoint an example. An outside observer would need to know about DnD to understand why certain instances of meta-gaming limit the enjoyment, so I don't think I can add that into an example.
Also, your definition of jerk is a lot broader than mine, at least. I think the metagaming we're talking about is when the player just can't seem to help himself, but I'll try to have an example that approximates what we're talking about.
An example of meta-gaming involving DnD that isn't ruining the fun: The players don't want to split the party, but are about to start a session and receive a phone call that one of their party members can't make it as planned. Although he normally never leaves the party's side, they meta-game a feasible solution for why he isn't with the party (or agree that they'll meta-game what happened depending on where they happen to be when he next gets to play). Then he calls in the middle of the session to say he will be a little late, but he can make it. So they meta-game a reasonable solution as to how the party gets back together.
An example of DnD meta-gaming to overcome obstacles in which the metagamer is not intentionally being a jerk, but is none-the-less being self-serving and would also be considered by a casual observer to be less enjoyable:
An NPC spy disguised as an NPC ally is talking to the party. The NPC has not given any indication that he is anything other than he says. The DM is making some secret checks behind the screen though. Something's up. Player 1 doesn't know this. Player 2 knows this. Neither of the characters they are playing know anything, however.
DM (paraphrasing): The man says all the right passwords and gives you a scroll case.
Player 1 (oblivious): I trade our top secret information with Mr. NPC guy for our next set of orders. I'll ask about this note on the map here that says "Meet the Mud-Doosa Clan - where all the women wear their hair on their head like a bunch of snakes and put stuff in their eyes to make them glow red and love to make scary statues but are totally not a clan of medusae"
Player 2 (knows what's up, and meta-gaming a bit): Does my character notice if the seal on the orders intact? I would spot a forgery.
Player 3 (meta-gaming big time): Wait here for a minute, rest of the party. I cast detect magic and follow the NPC around, stalking him like a crazy ex-girlfriend. I don't care if he goes to the out-house... I'm on him like stink on fish. And I might even get a hat of disguise out of this. If I get the chance I'm going to buy a mirror while I'm in town. Mud-Doosa... gimme a break!
Note: The Meta-gamers we're talking about always stalk the NPCs, at least in my experience, but I won't assume that's universal.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 2:29PM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
You advocate that the metagamer shouldn't have to change his position but the guy who doesn't want to should change his?
...do you not see how damned hypocritical that is?
It's not hypocritical. To see it as such, you have to see parity between the positions. There isn't any in my view. One person - the guy who chooses to make metagaming a problem when he doesn't have to - is making a mistake. The guy who chooses to not worry about such things is not.
"Metagaming" exists, but "metagaming as a problem" is something of your own creation. You can choose to make that "problem" go away at any time.
Yup, you're crazy. No two ways about it.
It is as if the metagamer is like a thief who refuses to see theft as a problem. And you are expecting the person being robbed to change their attitude toward wealth.
Blame the victim?
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 3:58PM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
|
Let's take a moment to consider the fact that we're comparing the meta gamer to a thief. A thief breaks the law and for that reason they are punished if caught and forced to have some kind of penalty placed upon them.
Let's consider the metagamer for a moment. Are they breaking any sort of law or rule. In the strictest sense the rules within the D&D handbooks do not say that using out-side knowledge of the game is against the rules. So where is the rule that the metagamer is breaking? If we look into it further we can see the rule is that of expectations of someone else. This is a tricky business, obviously we're talking about two different players having different expectations of what is acceptable. To say that one player is right and wrong at this point is to call into questions what the agreed upon expectations were before they sat down to play. If topics about this kind of action and what is and is not acceptable were not disccussed before hand then it's time to be diplomatic and solve the issue of differing opinions or to part ways.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 4:12PM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2009
|
Here is another example that could also be used..."Oh if it's a dragon it can't be more than Young because anything else would be too far above our CR range to make a balanced encounter. Let's go stab it even though we are all low on resources from previous fights. The DM wouldn't give us an unbalanced encounter"
Different scenario...same line of thought: that the DM won't "do" something because of a conceit of the game as a game. Does this help illustrate?
First, trying to fight a balanced encounter when low on resources can end badly, so the example still isn't completely logical.
Secondly, there are many ways in which it could be possible that the players know it's a Young dragon. Maybe they've heard stories and rumours about it in the town, maybe Ragnar knows the difference between young and old dragon tracks from his background, plus it would be pretty obvious once they get a glimpsw what they're dealing with. Or maybe the adventurers were just overwhelmed with greed and decided to press on towards the horde. Even if they are metagaming, this decision could be easily explained by in-character reasons as well.
And, they could very easily be wrong. Perhaps it is an ancient dragon, and while the players can interact with in in a variety of ways, any attempt to kill it would be suicidal.
You ignored the final sentence uttered by the player "The DM wouldn't give us an unbalanced encounter". <---that is clearly metagaming and shows the player is not thinking of in-game possibilities for his character. As DM, you would have to employ a solution to get him to think in-game and at least roleplay on the surface.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!)
*Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb.
http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 4:16PM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2009
|
Let's take a moment to consider the fact that we're comparing the meta gamer to a thief. A thief breaks the law and for that reason they are punished if caught and forced to have some kind of penalty placed upon them.
Let's consider the metagamer for a moment. Are they breaking any sort of law or rule. In the strictest sense the rules within the D&D handbooks do not say that using out-side knowledge of the game is against the rules. So where is the rule that the metagamer is breaking? If we look into it further we can see the rule is that of expectations of someone else. This is a tricky business, obviously we're talking about two different players having different expectations of what is acceptable. To say that one player is right and wrong at this point is to call into questions what the agreed upon expectations were before they sat down to play. If topics about this kind of action and what is and is not acceptable were not disccussed before hand then it's time to be diplomatic and solve the issue of differing opinions or to part ways.
As I've stated before, this mostly breaks down to a social gaming basic. When playing with others, it's best to cooperate with those around you to produce a time everyone will enjoy. Which usually breaks down to just doing what the majority wants to do. If the metagamer is the minority in the situation, then he's causing a problem and needs to change. If the metagamers are the majority, then yes, perhaps the person not enjoying should change their approach. Or either way, both sides could just go find others who enjoy their same style.
iserith, on the other hand has advocated individual > group. Which goes against such basic social habits.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!)
*Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb.
http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 5:17PM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2011
|
On the question of how metagaming can curb roleplaying:
To me, roleplaying means thinking / making decisions the way my character would make them. Metagaming often involves deciding in-character actions in a manner that has nothing to do with the character. That's why it is at odds with roleplaying. If you retroactively createe in-character justification for the decision, as a few people have suggested, this certainly mitigates that issue. Alternatively, some may have a different definition of roleplaying.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 7:38PM
#150
|
|
|
Here is another example that could also be used..."Oh if it's a dragon it can't be more than Young because anything else would be too far above our CR range to make a balanced encounter. Let's go stab it even though we are all low on resources from previous fights. The DM wouldn't give us an unbalanced encounter"
Different scenario...same line of thought: that the DM won't "do" something because of a conceit of the game as a game. Does this help illustrate?
First, trying to fight a balanced encounter when low on resources can end badly, so the example still isn't completely logical.
Secondly, there are many ways in which it could be possible that the players know it's a Young dragon. Maybe they've heard stories and rumours about it in the town, maybe Ragnar knows the difference between young and old dragon tracks from his background, plus it would be pretty obvious once they get a glimpsw what they're dealing with. Or maybe the adventurers were just overwhelmed with greed and decided to press on towards the horde. Even if they are metagaming, this decision could be easily explained by in-character reasons as well.
And, they could very easily be wrong. Perhaps it is an ancient dragon, and while the players can interact with in in a variety of ways, any attempt to kill it would be suicidal.
You ignored the final sentence uttered by the player "The DM wouldn't give us an unbalanced encounter". <---that is clearly metagaming and shows the player not thinking of in-game possibilities for his character. As dm you would have to employ a solution to get him to think in-game and at least roleplay on surface.
Again, rather than react by saying "you don't know that!" and trying to put the genie back into the bottle, the DM can ask "Hey Ragnar, how do you know that?" Depending on how the players know it's a dragon to begin with, they can easily come up with an in-game reason why they know it's a young one. If they know it's a dragon because they saw its tracks, for example, they can deduce the age from the size of the tracks.
Of course, this is assuming that the players are in fact correct that it is a young dragon.
The players are also making the dangerous assumption that the DM is going to make the encounter a soft one to account for their lack of resources. But, for all they know, the dragon encounter could be a tough one that will demand all of their resources.
Trying to control a player's thoughts is impossible. Even the best roleplayer, somwhere in the back of his head, isn't going to expect the DM to suddenly drop an encounter 20 levels higher than the party on him and butcher the party.
|
|
|
