http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-meta gaming-is-your-fault/ &

The dumb blog you are linking to is wrong, of course.

Metagaming is usually bad but you'd have to foolish to assume small amounts are poisonous, or even avoidable.

>>48556039
>The dumb blog you are linking to is wrong, of course

Oh, okay. What parts do you think are wrong?

>>48556013
I like it that the character knows what they know, not everything you know.

Your character can guess that the witch's weakness is water, we don't need it in their background that they read or watched The Wizard of Oz.

Them guessing the weakness is "Elvis Memorabilia" is a bit more suspect that you are metagaming, having done one of three things: been a part of a run of this campaign, read this campaign ahead of time, or read the DMs notes while he was paying for the pizza. You cuntmuffin.

>>48556013
This guy's a faggot.

>muh mocking gamers so le funny
>muh co-opted words
>all gms are screaming manbabies :^)
>look at all my mature (censored) cursing you guys I'm so edgy

>>48556096
According to THEANGRYGM that's your fault for allowing someone who'd already run or read the campaign/setting to join the game. Or expecting someone to act like an adult, because their subconscious is already tainted and will take biased actions which means they're totally justified to consciously take actions!

The author spends far too much time trying to be witty, failing miserably and then trying again before ever getting to a point, which of course is entirely subjective but is presented as an undeniable universal truth.

This is bad bait. I'm ashamed for taking it.

>>48556296
>Or expecting someone to act like an adult, because their subconscious is already tainted and will take biased actions which means they're totally justified to consciously take actions!

If you're referring to the portion of the article on the "Strike that from the record" argument, the entire point is that you're just inventing a new metagame for yourself, a game wherein you try to "justify" knowing a thing you already know, which other people may well disagree with you on. Inventing a new metagame to participate in just to escape a previous level of the metagame clearly invalidates the premise that "the metagame" is a bad thing.

>>48556402
Why do I get the feeling that the entire point of his argument falls apart when taken with his own statement that he isn't talking about that type of metagame?

Honestly I feel that a certain level of metagaming is inevitable and should be prepared for.
For example, if your players are fighting their first troll in a standard fantasy setting, they may decide to use fire to kill it.
Personally speaking I think it's better to justify this by saying that Trolls not liking fire being a feature of several stories that the characters grew up on, hence why they know it.
It's better than going "nah, you can't do that", at least

>>48556013
I'm not giving any clicks to whoever this faggot is. Does he actually state how and why he thinks metagaming is the GM's fault?

>>48556452

You probably get that feeling because of intense personal biases against the author, not because you've made a logical conclusion grounded in any sort of sensible reading of the article. I say that because he makes a point that metagame has become a dirty word in the P&P community because of shrieking dumbasses who do not understand that we are human beings huddling around a table to tell stories of pretend, and a certain level of metagaming is both expected and required. The "Strike that from the record" argument's purpose is to illustrate this reality.

>>48556526
>I'm not giving any clicks to whoever this faggot is.

Fair enough.

http://pastebin.com/YKjYXG8f

>>48556608
>http://pastebin.com/YKjYXG8f
Obliged.

>>48556013
>theangrygm
Sounds like the exact opposite person I'd want advice from just going by the name.

>>48556524
In a weird way, the players and PCs are always metagaming.

PCs rarely insult each other and fight. And PCs usually respond very friendly to other PCs and quickly ally together in a group, and very rarely split this group.

Not splitting the group (and the GM's attention and time) is also metagaming, in a way. A single PC hogging the spotlight and being a drama queen will get slapped back in line to let the GM shine on the other PCs (metagame).

This is very necessary and isn't a bad thing, imo.
I usually brush off most metagaming as "a lucky spirit watches over your PC" kinda bullshit as the PC hears a weird click while opening a chest and dives away from it, or if the player (not the PC) has a great hunch that I might set a bear trap in an ankle-deep puddle in the dungeon.

>>48556709

>IP count didn't go up

I understand you don't like that guy, but why on earth are you sticking around the thread then? The purpose of the thread is, ostensibly, to discuss the point made by the author.

>>48556072
The idea that every problem in a group is entirely caused by the GM, and nothing tells that players can just be asswipes.

>>48556739
Sticking around? That was my first comment after reading the OP. Have you ever heard of opening another tab, Sherlock?

>>48556793

Again,

>IP count didn't go up

I don't know who you're trying to fool, friendo, but carry on.

>>48556791

Well, of course they can be asswipes, but it's the GM's job to *not* have asswipes in his game, is it not? Player management and recruitment is as much his job as actually running the session. Your game being sabotaged because you did not properly vet players is plainly you not vetting well enough.

>>48556013
Alright, I'll read this bit-by-bit and address it as it goes. I'm genuinely curious, and bored.

>“screaming gamer herpes”
Technically correct, but tasteless.

>f$&%.
No. Please don't. It looks childish. Swear or do not, there is no "sorta". I'll refrain from touching on this again.

>[...] metagaming is an issue I take very seriously. [...] It isn't really a THING by itself.
OK, presumably you'll explain.

>Meta is a prefix
You're correct in this paragraph, and the one directly following it.

>[...] the game is a shared, noncompetitive experience.
Yes, I agree. I'm with you on this paragraph.

>the word metagame has become co-opted by screaming GMing dips$&%s who needed a word to yell at players with
>BUT, the problem is it now has such a negative connotation that you can’t use the word for anything OTHER than pissing and moaning about players you don’t like.
Yes and no. It sort of depends on if you can make the distinction and explain your reasoning to your players. Cooperative experience, right? As a counterpoint, presumably English-speaking people discuss the wine Cato Negro without being labelled racist, since it's a different matter?

> In this example, the thief character is secretly evil and secretly steals from the party.
Now, here's where we'll disagree. Didn't you say some two paragraphs before something on
"shared, noncompetitive experience"? Wouldn't this be a violation on that? Surely, that'll eventually be caught, and would make for interesting conflict if everyone's agreed on the tone of the game, but if it isn't? That this player simply doesn't care or understand that this'll upset the others, or does it specifically to upset them? That would, in my eyes, put the player at fault. And these people do exist.

Continued.

>>48556732
Aye, or hell, if you're running a dungeon-crawling game you could just assume that the players are competent at adventuring. Either way could work

>>48556826
Groups nominate GMs all the time. Playing dice isn't a mystical Kingdom you fag. In AW clones the GM is only there for hooks. Players often tolerate faults in the other players or the GM because they're sitting together in a room. Openly kicking players out can kill a group as soon as strengthen it. Are you on the same "GM = God" power trip as the moron who wrote this article focusing solely on what the GM's faults are?

>IP count didn't go up
fuck off.

>>48556960
Also, when you have PCs do full-military-spetsnaz tactics in 6-second timespans and casters casting specific spells within 5ft accuracy and maximum coverage, you just godda go with it (and let your minions/opfor do the same to them).

>>48556974
>Are you on the same "GM = God" power trip as the moron who wrote this article focusing solely on what the GM's faults are?

What on earth are you blathering about? The simple fact is that the GM is responsible for the game he is running. Do you disagree with this premise?

>fuck off.

Sorry friendo, but I calls em as I sees em. Didn't mean to put a damper on your ebin samefagging act.

>>48557013

Particularly when it's the explicitly first fight that a team of PCs (but not a team of players) is doing.

>>48556013
I always do my best to avoid metagaming as a player, and mitigate it as much as possible as a GM.

I don't even have to read the article to know that homeboy is a raging winged faggot.

>>48557100
Creepy efficient.
I personally love good combat players and perfect kill teams. A well oiled machine that you can throw a few spanners at without anyone being a little bitch about it.

File: faggotalarm.png (22KB, 800x100px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 800x100px

>try to read it
>pic related
>long as shit
>third paragraph:
>The thing is, every so often, I say something perfectly innocent and totally true and people get REALLY pissed off about it. To the point where I usually end up being blocked or blocking a few of the more raging psychotics on social media. Sometimes, I even get some hilarious death threats. But that’s the internet and nerds for you.

I can't do it, but he's almost certainly a smug faggot saying things to intentionally piss people off because it makes him feel relevant and big.

>>48556013
>implying my players are even capable of metagaming or that it would have any measurable impact on the game.

The joys of not running D&D or OSR and making your own settings/campaigns.

>>48557185
I'll take no self awareness for 20, Alex.

>>48557253

....

Metagaming is using out of character knowledge to determine what your characters would do, right?

pretty sure, you can do that.

Particularly if you design a setting in which big friendly spiders exists and are common, and the PCs' first action on seeing one is to draw their weapons and attack.

In character, they wouldn't have done that.

>>48556945

>The other form of metagame occurs when the players know something about the way the game works and use that to their advantage.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and claim that we're in different schools of roleplaying. I like the characters, and like any good character from any medium, I like them to be a believable person. So with this troll, of course the character shouldn't automatically "know" what the player does.

>[ANGRY RANT INTENSIFIES]

>[...] the wizard immediately responds by using fire-based attacks.
In this paragraph, the GM truly is at fault. The wizard's excuses are valid (although a Knowledge roll on the account of the reading may be called for).

We don't know the context, though. Is this the dude who read the adventure and stabbed the traitor when they met him and just treat it as their personal fantasy sandbox? I could understand the rage then, but you could also handle it as adults.

>making a choice based on information that SOMEONE ELSE thinks the character shouldn’t have
Anecdotal as it seems, neither does the offending player. They'll have flimsy excuses at best in my experience.

>I mean, you’re wrong. You’re a dumba$&.
Gee, thanks. You sure showed me.

>The issue is that it is IMPOSSIBLE not to metagame.
True. As >>48556732 so kindly pointed out. There's usually agreements of things that are off-limits between everybody involved. This is, in some way, metagaming. But with the intent to improve the experience for everyone.

>the “strike it from the record”
You're looking for the Exclusionary rule in US law, which has its exceptions. It's a complex issue, but it's been a problem since forever, essentially. The lack of context to the crime really hampers the example. And I suspect this'll bring me to an important point later.

Continued.

>>48557309
>>48556945

You know, as amazing as the blog-response registered forum post-dissection format is, what if you just read the entirety of the article *first*, and *then* responded to the crux of its point?

It would both take less time for you to compose, and less time for anyone else to read, and further make a greater focus on communicating more useful information.

>>48557302
>Metagaming is using out of character knowledge to determine what your characters would do, right?
It's more using out of game knowledge to determine the best way to go about things. Thus the 'gaming' half of metagaming.

Attacking friendly npcs isn't metagaming, it's just stupidity. Seducing the barmaid because you know that she has info because you read the campaign module is. Or choosing not the kill the BBEG Lt. because the same module gives you a benefit to not kill them. Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, when your character would know nothing of Islam.

>>48557086
not that guy but it is the responsibility of the adults in the room not to be asswipes to each other and come to agreements mutually. the GM is the one who decides on the rules in the game if need be, he's not the godking of all that exists in the group. So yes, it is a stupid premise. If you need the GM to come down with iron-fisted rulings, then in the same vein as the article, you have bigger problems than the GM.

>>48557086
the GM isn't entirely responsible for the game at all, in fact the players are more responsible for the story than the GM, the players decide whether the story ends with their corpses being butchered by goblins or they are victoriously selling goblin ears back in town
the GM can write all he wants, he can write an entire novel revolving around a magic orb that sets the group off on a crazy adventure as it guides them to a magic kingdom, only to have the party sell the orb to a hobo for 5 copper, its really up to the players how the story develops

and to go along with this, the players can also have control over intrusive metagaming and just generally being assholes, that isn't the GM's fault

>>48557292
Jeopardy categories never go below $200.

>>48556013
First 10 minutes into a new campaign,
Party encounters a monster.
It is a new monster so I describe it in detail.

Player says "Out of character. what monster is that. Tell me. I want to see it in the monster manual."

According to that blog I am a shitty DM and it is my fault that the player metagamed.

I know how bad metagaming can be because I've run and played Shadowrun. All of my players have been GMs or players in other campaigns and we've all run the same modules, everyone knows what's up when they meet Harlequin. It's not a big deal if your players aren't actively looking to fuck you over and not try and approach the story in their own way consistent with the characters they've made. If they want to be dicks and just cheatcode their way to the end of the mystery, then they're only cheating themselves and the most vindictive thing I'll do is not award them karma for it. I'd never be so petty as to just call them out and throw a tantrum during the game.

>>48557423
>when your character would know nothing of Islam.

Says who?

This is another relevant part of the article that deserves emphasis. When you are playing a character in a roleplaying game, you are simplifying decades of culture and growth into stat blocks onto a piece of paper. A lot of things get glossed over, and by the same token, a lot of assumptions can get made either way about what a character may or may not know.

Islam is a large and organized religion adhered to by millions across the world. You don't have to be a sand monkey to have heard of it or know a thing or two regarding it.

>B-but internet!

Do you think western people around the time of the Crusades just knew nothing at all of Islam or something? Culture is a factor in every character's life, and it is hardly a stretch to assume a character can justify some knowledge of common things.

This is addressed by the article, and put simply, it is further evidence that whining about the metagame is a waste of everyone's time.

>>48557309
>And that is why any attempt to control metagaming is utter horses$&%.
Alright, I'll get to it. You're technically right, but miss the point entirely. The point of an RPG is for everyone to enjoy it, right? Then shouldn't the level of metagaming be agreed upon before so that everyone can enjoy it? There's some great fun to be had in making the wrong decision and it coming back to bite you in the ass later. It'll make the story feel more believable and less like bad fanfiction. Conflict is interesting, generally, and nobody succeeds all the time.

>metagaming is obviously bad behavior
>metagaming isn’t ACTUALLY a problem
I've made my point above. I won't repeat myself.

>If you start having problems with metagaming, it’s usually the result of some other problem in your game.
In a way. You've either failed to communicate with your players what is acceptable, or you chose the wrong players.

>“why the f$&% did the GM allow the paladin and the thief into the same game?”
I don't see the problem if they're both okay with it. Again, talk to the players. Make characters simultaneously and talk about what you want with the game.

>See, the problem in most player-on-player metagaming is secrets.
Yes.
>The players have secrets
That everybody knows and pretends to not know. How interesting would Star Wars be if Darth Vader's identity wasn't ever revealed? Make it a part of the story, and talk to the players about it. You're supposed to work together, right?

>The Paladin and the Thief scenario actually occurs because one of the players is in the party under false pretenses.
THANK YOU, FINALLY.

>But a few of the players decided their characters were secretive a%&holes and didn’t share their information.
Talk about it. I'll not bring this up again.

Continued (Feel free to ignore, will post tl;dr)

>>48557414
I'll do that next time. I wanted to try the dissection style, and I've dealt with this bullshit IRL, so it was a bit personal.

>>48557527
>Player says "Out of character. what monster is that. Tell me. I want to see it in the monster manual."

"I designed it myself, you won't find it in any published splat."

>"Then show me your sheet for it, I want to see its stats and abilities."

What do now, anon? Do you, like me, feel a special repulsion for players who want info from behind the screen? It feels like a violation to me, breaking the sacred trust that the screen epitomizes.

>>48556013
I haven't bothered to read the article, so I'm being a faggot, but:

Metagaming is a problem. It's not just when people know things that they shouldn't - that sort of shit will come up OOC. It's when they act on that information.

You might be able to get away with knowledge about how to fight certain monsters, saying you got lucky on a first attack or that you have previous experience. It makes the game a lot tougher if you know that a monster is immune to anything but magic, but have to act like you don't know that. But if you're using it to quickly solve plots, or call out NPCs on things that the players couldn't possibly know, that's a dick move.

>>48557556
>Says who?
Says the player when they make the character.

Or are you telling me that a Samurai or Shinto monk would know the inner workings of Islam? I guess a Cherokee warrior would too.

Most people don't know the basics of Islam, even with the internet.

Most people don't even know the details of their own faith.

>>48557491
>the GM isn't entirely responsible for the game at all

A game can happen without an individual player.

A game cannot happen without a GM to take the reigns.

Your assertion is clearly wrong from the get-go, and therefore it is a waste of time for me to read the conclusions you've drawn based upon it.

>>48557489
>If you need the GM to come down with iron-fisted rulings,

What?

If a player is ruining a game, it is the GM's job to resolve it by using player management skills. Vetoing character concepts that threaten to cause problems, or even ejecting truly unruly ones. Are you going to sit there and pretend that this responsibility does not fall on the GM's shoulders?

Running the game is the GM's responsibility, and anything that hampers his running of the game, yes, including players that ruin it, are evidence of his failure to properly control his game, full stop. I can tell you've never GMed, but GMing goes quite beyond making a basic premise for an adventure and making rulings based on dice results and skill modifiers, I assure you.

>>48557625
You wrote the article didn't you?

>>48557624
>Or are you telling me that a Samurai or Shinto monk would know the inner workings of Islam?

At no point did you define it as "the inner workings." You, quote-and-fucking-unquote, said "use your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, when your character would know nothing of Islam."

This is what I mean, and what the article addresses. You're assuming the worst case scenario because you really want your point to stand. I'm assuming the best case scenario because it illustrates perfectly why this metagame whining is so pointless.

Sometimes, it's okay to just assume that the PC may have heard a legend about Trolls getting burned easily by fire, Anon. Because right now, you're perfectly illustrating my point. Absolutely fucking perfectly.

>>48557625
>take the reigns
*reins, friend.

It's a riding analogy, not a ruling analogy.

>>48557625
I do GM regularly, and our group decides on things, as a group. We've never had to outright veto or quash ideas because we can talk through them and reach a mutual understanding(and we've been playing for years) because we're fucking adults. The responsibility smoothly running a social get-together falls on the shoulders of all participants.
>I can tell you've never done this but there's more than just the rules
yes and that's the responsibility of the group, not one person. You talk as though your regular players have no real agency, so I'll make my own assumption and say you've never played with a good group if you think this sort of thing is a necessity. It is a social gathering first and foremost, where a game also takes place.

And to the other part of your post
>the game can run without an individual player, but not without the DM
it can run without you as the DM if your head is too far up your own arse and you are the one needing to be excised.

>>48557625
A game can't happen without players.

And a game CAN happen without a GM, there are systems designed around this concept.

>>48557727
>it can run without you as the DM if your head is too far up your own arse and you are the one needing to be excised.

As clever as you seem to think you are for making this comment, you've simply reinforced my point; for a game to occur, there must be a GM. No, it needn't necessarily be me, but I am not the one psychotically projecting a god-complex onto random people here. You are.

A game cannot exist without a GM. Which means there must be someone, an individual, who takes responsibility for the success and failure of that game. Full stop.

>>48556096

If you don't want players using out-of-game knowledge to win fights, don't throw them against monsters they're gonna know. You're the DM, make Trolls that are vulnerable to ice and let the players figure that out. Or make a whole new monster.

It's frustrating to know the solution to a problem and still make stupid plays because you're not "supposed" to know the solution. If I used lightning bolt instead of fireball on a troll because I didn't want to metagame, and then the Troll killed my wizard as a result, I'd be super-pissed!

>>48557771
>Fiasco
>A p&p game

I'm sure you'll namedrop some other hipster trash systems that nobody plays as well, but that's besides the point. To equate Fiasco, which comes to mind as the most popular example of the GMless game concept, to actual conventional roleplaying games, is absurd, and completely dilutes the meaning of the phrase "roleplaying game" in the /tg/ context.

>>48557697
I've said both basics and inner workings of Islam.

The vast majority of westerners know nothing about even the basics of Islam.

If I have a player who's background is in religious study or show that they lived in that area, fine. If they have their character study and learn about the specific subject as the game goes on, fine.

If they happen to be Muslim or have memorized the pillars themselves, but their characters are from the New World or even Eastern Europe, then their character would not suddenly have knowledge about Islam just because they met a Muslim in game.

File: technically_correct.jpg (55KB, 625x470px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x470px

>>48557573
>I TOLD THEM THAT! WHY DID THEY FEEL THE NEED TO KEEP SECRETS!?!?!!!?!
You've sort of defeated the point that his is all the GM. You told them and they are being assholes for no reason. Get new people.

>Challenge Yourself
All I'm going to put in this is that fire is a default "kill everything" since pretty much forever. If you've made the poor choice to put the troll in and really want to show off its defining feature, tough luck. Also, the opposite of "get new players" is also true. The players could just... walk out if the GM bullshits too much.

> that the vizier is ALWAYS evil
You seriously do this?

>The Realism Argument
You're mostly right, but I don't see why you're having a section on it. Act within the agreement according to your character.

>Hell, why not ASK the player to explain the knowledge.
You'll find my comment above.

>some people really get off on that creative story bulls$&%
Yeah, fuck off. Some of us wants a story about people and plots, not the amount of demi-humans a group of murderhobos killed on their way.


tl;dr: blogger rants about problems he could solve by talking to his players. Also argues that since Happy Meal water pistols aren't dangerous, you shouldn't take measures against monsoons and flooding.


Also, not doing that again.

>>48557853
>I've said both basics and inner workings of Islam.

>Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, when your character would know nothing of Islam.

No, you did not.

I am not going to respond to the rest of this post as it is clear you are simply backtracking at this point.

>>48557774
>I, the person who rests upon myself all responsibilities of the game to run perfectly as the master of ceremonies, who will heal every woe of the table and lead this stupid flock to a great game as I see fit, am not the one psychotically projecting a god-complex
>no, it is you, the one who says that a social gathering should be managed by everyone involved through mutual agreement. you are the one with the god-complex.

and of course,
>a game cannot exist without a GM
is different from
>a game cannot exist without a singular person on whom the responsibility of the success and failure of that game rests
I understand that you can't see that because again, your field of view is nothing but your colon, but no one person is responsible for the success of an informal social gathering to play a game. You conflate GM with god-emperor even if you can't see it, where that is just a running joke among most groups.

>I want to be able to metagame the blog
Also, are you really so pathetic you need to beg for money from 4chan of all places?

>>48557900

A host is not "the god-emperor" for trying to run a successful dinner party. He is, however, responsible for the catering, the guest list, entertainment (if any), and numerous other factors that will, by and large, decide whether or not it is a successful dinner party or not.

Your exaggerations are scarcely worth responding to anymore.

>>48557625
>A game can happen without an individual player.
>A game cannot happen without a GM to take the reigns.


Just because the game can't happen without the GM doesn't mean that the GM is entirely responsible for everything in it.

Your argument relied on the phrase "an individual player". However we're not talking about an individual player. We're talking about players as a group. Without ANY players the GM doesn't have a game, and therefore the game requires a group of players.

As the first anon expanded on, the players are responsible for their own attitudes to the game, for their own characters' actions, for cooperating with one another, and more. The only way of preventing this is with tyrannical DMing where actions the DM doesn't like are punished or forbidden, but this will quickly lose them players. You tried to swerve away from this when the other anon brought it up here >>48557491
by claiming it was a waste of your time. However it is key to why your argument is wrong, and I suspect you already sense this, which is why you dodged it.

Your argument is essentially sophistry. It is the kind of asinine specious reasoning used by someone who's self-regard greatly outweighs their intelligence.

>>48557887
The first thing someone should know about Islam is its basics. A character who is able to use their knowledge of Islam to influence the opinion of a Muslim would know even more than the basics.

This isn't hard to understand pal. We get it, you want to justify your poor roleplaying, but this isn't the place or the way to do it.

But since you refuse to even be reasonable, we can just end this discussion now and you can go cry for alms somewhere else.

>>48557697
>I'm assuming the best case scenario because it illustrates perfectly why this metagame whining is so pointless.

That's textbook cherry-picking, anon.

>>48557974
That's a bad analogy because a dinner party with catering, guest list, entertainment and numerous other factors is much more involved than an informal night of P&P RPG with friends, and I say that as someone who works on a setting for months at a time before GMing. It's a social gathering between people and it's not unreasonable to expect them to take part of the responsibility in its success.
The anon I am arguing with says that it rests upon a single individual the success and failure of a game, which is retarded. Maybe that is the case in his group, but if that is what is required in his group then it's a shit group.

>>48557582
I know right?
RPG's are a two way street, I can craft an immersive world where the players interact in meaningful ways all day...
But only if they want and try to engage in it.

>>48556013
I read the article now and I am surprised by the conclusions he drew.
The solution to the troll problem is simple. You can't perfectly recreate that first dnd adventure you had when you were a kid and didn't know how to fight trolls. Remember that? When you fought and figured out how to defeat the troll? You felt pretty awesome and smart didn't you?

Well guess what? You will never have that experience again... with a troll.
You have solved it. You can't go back.

Make (or find) a new monster. Make a new challenge with a new solution.

>>48557982
>Without ANY players the GM doesn't have a game, and therefore the game requires a group of players.

Players are disposable. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but even a casual understanding of how numbers work will tell you it is true. A group is comprised of several players, but will only have one GM.

>As the first anon expanded on, the players are responsible for their own attitudes to the game, for their own characters' actions, for cooperating with one another, and more. The only way of preventing this is with tyrannical DMing where actions the DM doesn't like are punished or forbidden, but this will quickly lose them players.

To address this point, because it is the only other point in this post worth addressing, a GM who finds his player's attitudes unconducive to a group activity is obliged to either fix those attitudes using tools such as pulling him aside and having a discussion right up to ejection from the game. Again, that is in fact part of his responsibility if he wants his game to keep running, because he is the director, the referee, and the manager.

Nobody said GMing was easy.

>>48558044

Now you're saying "the local elder" is in fact a Muslim?

Can you please take a moment to differentiate between what you think you've said, and what you've actually said?

>>48558068

As much so as to imply somebody is going to know absolutely nothing of a wide-spread religion, which is, again, the point. It can go either way, so shrieking "YOU CAN'T KNOW THE TROLL'S WEAK TO FIRE!" is just stupid.

>>48558088
This. At best you can mix things up, or have the solution be so specific you might not remember the details later. But who won't remember trolls are weak against fire? It pops up in all sorts of fantasy now.

>>48558088
>You will never have that experience again... with a troll.
>Make a new challenge with a new solution.

20 WIS answer

>>48558157
>Players are disposable.

Until if you have no players. And then your game is non-existent.

Since you obviously cannot recognize this basic fact, paying any further attention to your limp flailings would be a waste of my time and dignity.

>>48558157
>Now you're saying "the local elder" is in fact a Muslim?

So you have terrible reading comprehension and are unable to draw accurate solutions about a situation and the persons involved beyond what is spoon fed to you.

While your failing blog should have made it clear by now, I'd like to take this chance to recommend you finish your GED and avoid any field that requires critical thinking, reading skills, or social awareness.

>>48558229
>"I DIDN'T MAKE A MISTAKE IN MY POST THAT DIDN'T EXPLAIN WHAT I THOUGHT I DID, YOU JUST MISREAD IT BECAUSE YOU'RE SO STUPID!"

Alright, friend.

>>48558214
>Until you have no players

It is awful strange to assume that literally all players around me would be disruptive game-ruiners that I would need to remove, but I suppose it is a necessary assumption to make when you really, really want to villianize a random person on the internet. I mean, basic probability is working pretty firmly against you, here.

>>48558304
So yes, you need to be spoon fed in order to understand things.

This explains why you believe metagaming is not only acceptable, but also the GMs fault. Too bad really, but I guess something has ruined your ability to roleplay.

>being this much of a fag
How's it feel to never play with other people, OP?

Just stick to your vidya from now on, okay kid?

File: 1240612252597.png (14KB, 595x629px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 595x629px

>>48558358

Are you okay, friend? Would you like to discuss why your post did not say what you think it did in more detail? I don't mind indulging you here.

>Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, when your character would know nothing of Islam.

See, because you failed to use any adjectives to describe the local elder beyond the "local" bit, this could be taken in a couple of ways, because of how English works.

>What you thought you said
"Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the Islamic local elder to help you, appealing to his sense of religious duty by quoting some relevant scripture or somesuch, when your character would know nothing of Islam."

>What you could've meant
"Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, explaining the danger of this violent and aggressive religion, pointing to the well-known concept of Jihad to pull a 'we must unite or perish divided' type angle"

The first would certainly imply you would need greater than cursory knowledge of Islam to compel his aid, because quoting relevant scripture would necessitate reading it. On the other hand, anyone who's suffered a sand nigger invasion is quite familiar with the concept of Jihad, and who's to say the character did not come from one of the many countries Islam has waged war on in the past?

You needn't be angry, friend, but in the future, try to speak more accurately, and get less angry when people are not able to understand what you are poorly trying to say.

File: Doushio.png (42KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 200x200px

>>48558191

>>48558529
So again, yes, you need to be spoon fed. Part of reading comprehension is being able to understand the implied information that is not explicitly stated.

If using your knowledge of Islam to influence the local elder helps to further the cause of your character it is safe and reasonable to assume the elder is a Muslim. Otherwise your knowledge of Islam wouldn't have been useful in persuading him.

But please continue to cherry pick and be as dense as lead.

>who's to say the character did not come from one of the many countries Islam has waged war on in the past?
The player does, on their character sheet, which you read before the game begins.

Stay in school kid, you'll graduate eventually.

>>48556013
>patreon
Take your tin cup somewhere else. And take your stupidity with you.

File: hatefacts - muslim terrorist rates_1.png (369KB, 1544x3100px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1544x3100px

>>48558647
>If using your knowledge of Islam to influence the local elder helps to further the cause of your character it is safe and reasonable to assume the elder is a Muslim. Otherwise your knowledge of Islam wouldn't have been useful in persuading him.

No, it isn't, because it's just as possible that, in your one-sentence example, that Islam is a threatening foreign force that he ideally believes will be of no harm to his happy little village, and by evoking Jihad, you are illustrating to him that conversion or death means helping you is in his people's best interest.

I think you need a glass of water, friend. Or maybe you're just too blue pilled and cannot even conceive of a world where Islamist armies threaten the safety of simple people.

Which, honestly, is an unusual point that I did not think I would have to make, but you seem quite adamant that you implied he was Islamic merely by saying you used knowledge of Islam to influence him, when it's entirely possible he is not, and you are using basic knowledge to emphasize how it can be a threat to him.

So either you are simply very angry and embarrassed and sticking to your guns over this one for no reason other than bullheaded stubbornness, or literally *that* blue pilled.

>>48558770
Again. All of the items you have listed are things the player should have explicitly listed on their character's background.

A Cherokee slave in London would have no knowledge of Islam unless the character was provided the information. If the character is never provided that information but uses their personal knowledge of Islam to influence another person, that's metagaming.

If a crusader from london who's only knowledge of Islam is that it's heresy against Christ his player would not be able to use his personal knowledge of Islam to gain the favor/trust of the local elder. Who's a Muslim, since you need that spelled out for you and lack basic reasoning skills.

But please continue to cherry pick and be dense. I'm sure it makes you a wonderful person to play with.

>begging this hard for money
I'm going to look at you and say no. Now fuck off retard.

>>48558872
>Who's a Muslim, since you need that spelled out for you and lack basic reasoning skills.

Well, things do need to be said before they can be understood, that's true, friend. Saying what you're thinking does help in the communication process.

However, it's worth contemplating; assume the Cherokee slave says he was bought by a rich Muslim merchant who retired to London because he enjoyed the British isles more. As in, that minute, then and there, and then proceeded to say "And I use my knowledge of Islam to convince the Islamic local elder to help us." His owner has never come up beforehand, and you didn't even consider it a necessary detail on his character sheet, since you never thought it would come up.

Would you screech "YOU NEVER SAID THAT, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ISLAM, YOU CAN'T DO THAT" in that case?

>>48558939

>IP counter didn't change

No, seriously, why not just stop replying to the thread?

Virt, put your new trip back on or stop driving around to hotel WiFi hot apots.

>>48558994
It just so happens a room full of people sharing the same internal network want to remind you how much of a fag you are for begging for money through a stupid blog on 4chan of all places, that's all.

>>48558994
>His owner has never come up beforehand, and you didn't even consider it a necessary detail on his character sheet, since you never thought it would come up.
I'd consider that a very big detail pal. And so should you if you're intelligent. That's the kind of material you build plot with.

If they never listed that their owner was a Muslim living in London but tried to use that to justify metagaming I'd call them out on their bullshit. Why? Because if you refuse to add details like that after I've asked you to, so I can build a decent story that engages all of my players, I'm going to add them. And you're going to be stuck with what I give you.

At this point you seem to be far to thick to actually converse with, so we'll be ending this waste of energy. Good night.

>>48559107
>Because if you refuse to add details like that after I've asked you to

Assume you didn't.

Because the thing here is, whatever you'd like to say, all of us people who actually *do* run games know that eventually, you're going to run into that scene where suddenly a detail that you didn't think would be important becomes important.

We can both argue over what we think is or isn't important in regards to a character's backstory, but that's immaterial. The point is, no character is going to be so fleshed out that you're going to know every last detail of his entire life. So when you run into a scenario where it's completely possible that an otherwise unrelated detail of his life has become relevant, and really it's just him using that as a justification to pull some levers in the gameworld, why is that bad? Why is that wrong?

Why is it wrong for the PCs to know the Troll is hurt by fire, Anon?

>btw ur 2 dumb 4 me bai lol

A classic.

>>48559180
Here's your (you) poorfag. You can go somewhere else now.

>>48559221

I still don't understand why you're still posting. You've been doing this since the thread's inception.

I mean, seriously, take a moment and cost-benefit this shit.

>Benefit:
>I get to vent some anger and frustration by spending my time in a thread I hate (?)
>I get some delicious (You)s

>Costs:
>The thread I hate hangs around longer, because even if I'm saging, someone will probably reply to me and not sage
>I spend a non-zero amount of time responding

Nobody can be *that* addicted to (You)s... can they?

>>48559300
see >>48559102

The entire lgs is mocking you right now. It's funny.

File: saitama ok_1.jpg (24KB, 375x305px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 375x305px

>>48559424

So does anyone with anything intelligent to say have something to add?

>>48559473
We're debating whether or not we should even bother help you understand what metagaming actually is, and why it's bad. But based on everything you've said thus far, you're a waste of time.

It's more amusing to watch you try and be an intellectual who thinks his opinions are worth shilling money for.

>>48559545
>I'm here to shitpost and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of gum!

I've honestly never seen someone try to play the "Y-yeah I'm totally browsing /tg/ with all my friends and we're all l-laughing at you, haha" angle though, so you've definitely managed to score a first there.

>>48559221
>>48559300
>>48559424
>>48559473
>>48559545
>>48559586
Just fuck already.

>>48559586
Does your lgs not have wifi?

>>48559586
We've got plenty of gum pal.

Do people not bring their phones and laptops to your club or game store?

>>48559623
>>48559624

>Even utilizing his phone to preempt calls of samefaggotry

I see I'm dealing with a professional shitposter here.

Let's go ahead and get back on track, though.

>>48559545
>We're debating whether or not we should even bother help you understand what metagaming actually is, and why it's bad.

Well, there's what metagaming actually *is* (remaining informed about the fact that you're a bunch of players sitting around a table playing what's essentially group pretend with rules, and using it to guide your decisions), and what mouthbreathers use it as (a bad-wrong-thing used when I don't think a player has "earned" information about the game world).

The former is clearly not bad, as it is a self-evident fact, and one that must be dealt with purely as a function of running the game.

The latter, I argue, is not bad, because as the OP's article points out, all you're doing now is making a new metagame to play. You're trying to "play dumb" until you "earn" your information that you already know. You're acting like you haven't played a hundred games with trolls that are vulnerable to fire before, so by golly, you're going to have that scene where you play like a total retard just so you can "earn it," making a begrudging show of it just so nobody gets their panties in a twist.

Which would you like to educate me on?

>>48559749
We're not going to get back on track for anything.

Go cry for money somewhere else pal. /tg/ is not the place for you.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming
>https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Metagame
>http://forumroleplay.com/roleplay-guides/bad-roleplay/metagaming/
>http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Metagame

Since you don't actually know the definition of metagaming, here's your homework.

Hopefully you'll also start to learn how to roleplay instead of being a man child.

>>48559887
>Since you don't actually know the definition of metagaming

What part in my post was incorrect?

>>48559927
read nigga. read the links, you'll learn something.

>>48559967

I will see a different definition, surely, but I will not see what precisely here is wrong. As the extremely intelligent multi-head-spaced individual that you are, I am sure you can guide me in the right direction through clear refutation of my definitions.

Also, this is a thinly veiled excuse to keep the thread you despise so much bumped.

>>48556013
Don't really mind it

>>48560016
>I refuse to read. Spoon feed me.
So like we thought, you are hopeless.

>>48560016
I mean we've all been saging since the conception of this thread.

But man, you're really beyond help. Sad.

>>48560050

I am here for a conversation and a debate, after all, not to allow a shitposter to have a wikipedia page make his argument for him.

Also, see >>48559300. You're only really hurting your own goals here, unless this is all an excuse to get in closer touch with your head-mate or something.

>>48560108
you're here to shill your blog and ask for money.

not only do you not know the meaning of the term 'metagaming' you're too lazy to even read the information from four links.

>>48560159
>you're here to shill your blog and ask for money.

>>48556608

?

>>48560187
why not just do that in the first place then? just be honest, you're here to fish for money and clicks.

>>48557982
>Without ANY players the GM doesn't have a game, and therefore the game requires a group of players.
No, therefore the game requires A player, singular.

File: 3d OH BOY A REPLY_1.jpg (114KB, 1204x680px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1204x680px

>>48560227
>"ur a shill"
>'Here's the article without clicking on the website'
>"U-UR STILL A SHILL"

>>48557624
>Or are you telling me that a Samurai or Shinto monk would know the inner workings of Islam?
Those are precisely the people who might know of it, nobles and priests are the kinds of people I expect to know about more than just the shit in their own town.

>>48560267
so you're also fishing for (you)s

thanks for coming out finally.

>>48558074
>is much more involved than an informal night of P&P RPG with friends
Only if you're a shitty host.

>>48560290
Muslims -currently- make up 0.01% of the population of Japan. The first Muslim to actually set foot on the islands of Japan was a single Arab who was sailing with the Portuguese. We only know this because of Portuguese records, as he is not mentioned at all in any Japanese material from the time.

Islamic scholars only knew of Japan from trading with the Chinese:
>"East of China are the lands of Waqwaq, which are so rich in gold that the inhabitants make the chains for their dogs and the collars for their monkeys of this metal. They manufacture tunics woven with gold. Excellent ebony wood is found there."

So no, the most a Japanese Samurai, priest, or monk would know of Islam is that it's a thing that exists very far away. Unless they spent a reasonable amount of time in Malaysia and other parts of Islamic Asia like western China, but that's something that would be listed in a characters background and agreed about before hand between the player and the GM.

>>48560636

Ah, welcome back. >>48559180 is waiting for your reply.

>>48560687
Put your trip back on, virt. You can't mask that bullshit smug style of posting.

>>48560687
Quick read through the thread; guy's not worth my time. He needs to learn the actual definition of metagaming. He needs to actually invest time as a GM and a player to flesh out his characters and worlds. He should come back after he's done that.

Metagaming is wrong because there is more to the game than being right, there are more players involved usually than just you. If you want to play a game where you always have the right 'levers' to keep the game going and don't want to maneuver through any hoops beyond what can be solved with access to the internet, the campaign module, or argue that a knowledge check would allow your character to know something, fine. You're not going to be playing with other people for long since you'll just annoy everyone. Stick to video games.

Anyways, I've got another game that's about to start. I'll be saging the thread since it's not worth the space on the page. Good night virt.

>>48560792

I mean, claiming that you're ducking out of the thread and then coming back basically gives me the legal right to be smug. It's a law.

>>48560836
>Quick read through the thread; guy's not worth my time.

And yet, here you are.

>>48560836
>or argue that a knowledge check would allow your character to know something, fine.

Actually, I just noticed this. So you're unironically arguing that a character should not even be allowed to roll a knowledge skill to know something that's entirely within the scope of their knowledge? Please clarify.

>>48557414
I have to agree with this. Most of what I read in these posts here:
>>48557309
>>48556945
>>48557573
>>48557855
are basically safe-stance no argument bullshit.

>Well, sure, you're right on some parts of this, but on other parts of this is sorta wrong, and everyone should all be happy and friends with each other always.

If you're going to bother to post, take at least a stronger, non-neutral "both sides are wrong" stance. It just sounds so idealistic and a little holier-than-thou.

On the actual topic, yeah, it's true that some metagaming is to be expected at the table, but that metagaming is meant to strictly be used for the purposes of keeping the group together and the adventure going forward, not to discuss tactics or the best strategies or exact distances to utilize a spell's specific range so that you don't hit Bob the Bobarian with sleep. It's meant for Tim the Thief to keep in mind when the party gets a quest, that he shouldn't go "Well my character is a huge ginormous stick in the mud so he sits this out in the corner and has a drink".

Metagaming has no REAL place in any table beyond that feature. Telling the DM that it's THEIR fault is horse shit.

>>48556013
Is he pretty much the only DnD GM advice blogger out there? Because I've seriously considered writing my own blog just so that new GMs don't have to put up with his bullshit rambling.

>>48562199
Exccellent idea. You have my blessing.

>>48562199

The only one worth reading, in my experience.

>B-BUT I DISAGREE WITH HIM SO HE'S NOT WORTH READING

Just getting that out of the way now. Honestly, for his shitty "le angry" meming and his awful meandering, he's still by far the most thought provoking and well spoken GM writing a blog out there.

What subjects would you write about? You should start brain-storming something to talk about. Use this thread as practice, even.

What do you think about metagaming?

>>48562518
Try being a little less obvious.

>>48561676
>not to discuss tactics or the best strategies or exact distances to utilize a spell's specific range so that you don't hit Bob the Bobarian with sleep

Why not? Ostensibly adventurers who literally fight monsters together for a living would actually have a basic idea of how to not ruthlessly fuck eachother over with their abilities.

How on earth is "OOC tactics talk time" a bad example of metagaming? That's a good example. Players are working together to accomplish a goal.

What you *probably* mean is that it's bad for the flow of the actual game, since for every minute the PCs spend talking to eachother about what to do is a minute less spent actually playing the game, which it is, but that's not a problem of the metagame, and further that's not what you said, so I'm not going to give you that much credit. Explain your assertion.

>>48562518
Yea I like his content, I just don't think he's really worth much in terms of actually writing. He does the opposite of polishing a turd, he shits on diamonds.

I'd probably focus more on actual roleplaying than mechanics since he would have me completely beat in that department, but I have quite a lot of experience with improv and acting and that tends to be where I shine as a player and DM.

As for metagaming, my two cents (note that I didn't actually read his article on metagaming, I just used to read his blog but stopped when I couldnt put up with his bull#@$% anymore).

Metagaming in my opinion is fine o long as it isn't egregious. Take the example that everyone tends to throw around; a new party of adventurers meets a troll and instantly reacts by using fire. Now although the DM never gave any indication that fire is a troll's weakness, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that a troll's weakness to fire is a common piece of advice given to people (like, run downhill from bears or make yourself look big in front of a jaguar).

If you really want to stop metagaming however, you're completely free to just change the statblock of trolls. Make them weak to acid instead of fire if you know that your players know about troll weaknesses. In this case however, I'd advise you to tell them to roll an int check to realise this weakness to avoid a nasty "HAHA I GOT YOU" moment. Even if they fail the check, they'll be made aware that something may be different about this troll and won't feel as bad when the fire fails.

>>48561676
>If you're going to bother to post, take at least a stronger, non-neutral "both sides are wrong" stance. It just sounds so idealistic and a little holier-than-thou.

There's a stick up someone's ass here and the pressure it's putting on your brainstem is making you think it's someone else's problem.

>>48561676
A middle position is still a position dummy.

File: well the important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both_1.png (15KB, 233x241px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 233x241px

>>48562776
>>48562746

Yeah, one reserved for fedoras who can't stop jerking it over how smart and impartial they are.

File: When the level of corruption is just right.jpg (33KB, 451x302px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 451x302px

>on top of the article there is a patreon banner begging for oppressionbux

Clickbait is not dead I see, thank Rngesus I used adblock

>>48556826
>it's the GM's job to *not* have asswipes in his game
No, fuck you. The GM isn't to be a babysitter. The GM's job is to run the game. Gaming groups aren't tiger teams, they're groups of friends who do it for fun.

If you act like a cunt then that's all on your head, don't try to shift blame.

>>48562606
>Why not? Ostensibly adventurers who literally fight monsters together for a living would actually have a basic idea of how to not ruthlessly fuck eachother over with their abilities.
>How on earth is "OOC tactics talk time" a bad example of metagaming? That's a good example. Players are working together to accomplish a goal.
Sorry, I should have clarified.

What I mean is OoC discussion of tactics DURING the actual combat. I LOVE it when my players wartable, and actually discuss plans, but I don't like it when they're doing it in the middle of combat because then they're taking a minute long thought about a harrowing situation that is measured in 6-10 second intervals depending on the system.

If they stop outside of a dungeon before entering in and discuss what formations they should take, what they should do in case they get split up, who should take over and heal for the cleric if they go down? That shit is my candy.

>>48557582

thankfully nobody in my group is like that. I would just turn my head away from them and continue the game. they have no need to know everything like HP, stats, etc. though they could understand the basics of the creature if knowledge rolls worked for them

>>48563256
>The GM isn't to be a babysitter.

If a player is misbehaving, who can declare, with finality, that his behavior deserves expulsion from the group?

Oh, sure, a player can issue an ultimatum, "him or me," but yes, a GM is basically a baby sitter. He ensures the kids play nice and resolves issues as best he can where they are not. To not do so is to be derelict in your duty as the organizer of the event.

I agree with him about fudging dice. I don't necessarily agree with him entirely about this, but I'm too tired to read the blog post.

>>48564106
>If a player is misbehaving, who can declare, with finality, that his behavior deserves expulsion from the group?
Whoever's got legal leverage.

>>48564156

Why are you intentionally misconstruing a social contract with the concept of trespassing? It does not make your point look more valid.

>>48564197
Not that anon, but because if he is breaks that social contract and pisses off the store owner/house owner, which very well might NOT be the GM, they can expel them.

Onto YOUR actual point, uh, no, the GM is not the baby sitter period. The GM is not an adult authority figure for the social contract as you call it, he is another human being. He has great leverage in who can stay or go while he is GMing, but he is not there under any legal obligation to baby sit anyone. If someone chokes on their own vomit, tough shit for them. If two people get into a lovers spat, that's not his business. It is polite and nice of him to step in to help keep things going, but it's also up to the other players to help keep focus on the game at hand and to keep contributing.

The GM is there to have fun too. But putting him on a pedestal like that is bound to stress him out when other players should be taking action to remind the players acting up that they need to chill the fuck out.

>>48564490
>If two people get into a lovers spat, that's not his business.

If it disrupts the game, it definitively is his business.

What kind of beta GM watches as a lover's quarrel ruins his game and just fucking sits there, doing nothing but passively hoping they decide to take it else where?

>>48561676
I'm being honest. I'm not gonna take a more aggressive stance of that's not what I think.

Either way, we're sort of agreeing.
>but that metagaming is meant to strictly be used for the purposes of keeping the group together and the adventure going forward
is exactly the point I was making. Agree with your players what you want out of the game and don't be afraid to talk about the game in a meta sense. The game is a shared responsibility, and preferably everybody's on the same page as to what it'll be about.

>discuss tactics or the best strategies or exact distances to utilize a spell's specific range so that you don't hit Bob the Bobarian with sleep.
Since spells presumably work the same every time, wouldn't the wizard be able to guess this in character? I'm a fan of Shadowrun, so I kinda like discussing plans and tactics in-game, and seeing as you're usually some kind of professional, isn't this to be expected?

>idealistic
You know, I know where we are, but I'd prefer not to be cynical.
>a little holier-than-thou
A shame you think that, as I was just trying to be honest.

>>48564529

These are the kinds of GMs who run failed 3 session campaign after failed 3 session campaign.

It's kind of sad, but I've noticed that a lot of other GMs on /tg/ are not interested in taking leadership in a game. Then they wonder why game after game of theirs mysteriously seem to fail.

>>48564106
You're implying the GM has all sorts of powers and no consequences for using them here. It's just not that simple in reality.

A game isn't some sort of formal event. I'll repeat, it's just friends having fun together. It's everyone's duty to make sure they're not bothering anyone else. Don't shift blame, if you're a piece of shit it's not anyone else's fault.

>>48564529
>If it disrupts the game, it definitively is his business.
No, actually, it's not his business at all.

I'm not saying he shouldn't take an interest to step in and help them sort it out and stop them, but I am saying it literally is not his business, and if they tell him to but out, he absolutely should. Because it is not his business. End of story.

>>48565487
Well, as I said earlier, I don't mind tactics talk, but I mind it during the actual combat itself. I mean, guessing how far EXACTLY a 20 foot radius spell will extend to perfectly hit only the two enemies and none of your three allies during a stressful situation? That's a sort of metagaming as well, because in character the wizard doesn't have a grid-lined world at his disposal to measure as well as the time to angle it perfectly. I genuinely think the situation would be far more interesting if they had to hit the party fighter with it as well.

It's a metagaming concession I allow as not all people can make snap decisions on the fly because they have little real-life combat training. But at the very least, I try not to let people give other people ideas unless they discuss it in characters. Things like "Oh, don't cast that spell here, cast THIS spell over THERE and then that way, we can..." What's the point of him even playing his character then?

>A shame you think that, as I was just trying to be honest.
I'm just telling you how it comes off. If you try and stick yourself into an argument with too many concessions to the other side, and only saying "safe" opinions like "People should just be nice to each other!" and even things like "Anyone in any situation who showed aggression is wrong, even if it was called for!", then that just makes it seem like you're only saying the "right" things to get people to agree with you. Or as >>48562790 put it, like you're jerking off about how impartial you are.

You don't even have to be an asshole, just at least take a stronger stance.

File: image.gif (961KB, 245x213px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 245x213px

The amount of ego stroking in this thread is off the charts, holy shit.

>>48568026

>>48562790

>>48556974
>mystical Kingdom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lztc1pZ6H5s

>>48568012
>but I am saying it literally is not his business
If someone would rather a third party not but into their personal matters, maybe they shouldn't handle their shit in a way which drags the third party into it.
If something's going on midgame, take a walk. Take it outside. If you don't, you're making it EVERYONE IN THE GROUP'S business by ruining their game time.

>>48568164
>If someone would rather a third party not but into their personal matters, maybe they shouldn't handle their shit in a way which drags the third party into it.

>Maybe people should just perfectly solve literally all of their problems in the most optimal way.

I'd love to live my life in your Micky Mouse Fantasy Land, but the problem here is: this is Earth.

The GM is a player too

>>48556013
We have a metagaming bard that makes our campaign unbearable, and our DM just keeps making him more powerful. He has to be the strongest guy at the table or he storms off.

File: shame.gif (43KB, 329x280px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 329x280px

>>48556013
>open letters on the internet
Wow, I was just thinking "You know who I should take more advice from? Complete strangers."

I mean, why would I form my own opinions or develop my own skillset when I can just take the unedited and unaccredited advice of a person I have never once seen face-to-face?

I sure am glad I read all these "Dear X" bits on the internet instead of asking for the advice of close friends or respected voices in the field, aren't you?

>>48568340
First off, get better at building scarecrows. That's a pretty bad strawman, even by 4chan standards.
Second, in what capacity does this remotely address what we're talking about?

>>48556013
Never properly address someone knowing something secret. Useless garganoid saying nothing of value to justify abusing a different kind of system mastery.

>>48556013
What the fuck is this blogshit nonsense?

>>48557974
Why are you throwing a dinner party and not a potluck?

>>48569829
Right back at ya, buddy.

File: Awww shit.jpg (147KB, 351x440px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 351x440px

>>48557900
I followed this reply chain all the way up to you, and I have to say, you made me laugh quite heartily. Good show, Anon. 100% agree with you.

>>48556013
>http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

>Be a knowledgeable D&D player
>Be fighting a troll
>Either by a Nature/Arcana/History roll decide my character wouldn't know its weakness
>Notice how he starts regenerating
>"Hey! Our attacks aren't working!, we can't fight this thing!"
>Call for retreat.
>Go back to base town.
>"Now we should go and try to figure out just what the hell was that thing...Wizard, hit the library, Cleric, go ask in the church, I'll ask the locals for rumours or tales"
>Fucking solved.

File: 1462078864677.jpg (40KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 450x338px

I only metagame when another player pisses me off.

>playing cleric
>sorcerer won't stop making fun of me
>says i am doing shit for damage and I am useless
>get into fight with orc bandits
>i'm low on hp
>I retreat
>sorcerer player: ''I guess when the going gets tough clerics become chickens lol''
>coming from the guy that leaves us behind if we wipe on all of his characters

He was robbing some paladins and I was half way across town, I metagamed to know where he was and turn him in. He got so fucking pissed.

>>48573038

>Dragging your party through an irrelevant quest as if everybody at the table does not already know what kills the troll because literally everyone is so beta they're afraid of being called out as metagaming

How does this sound fun or entertaining in the least? It's literally just going through irrelevant motions so assuage your conscience / get the stupid GM off your back.

When a player has to play like a retard because the GM has decided that he wants to have the "woah dude the answer is fire" for the 800th time, there is no interesting gameplay going on here. You are just going through the motions.

>>48575426
Not only that, but burned tissue doesn't heal properly, so it's perfectly reasonable that PCs could figure it out.

>>48576041

I don't even like relying on the argument of plausibility, because unless you've statted and established all history in your character from literal birth to present, who the fuck is anyone to say what random facts a character may or may not know?

Further, it's shit game design to have a "roll to find the Achilles heel" situation. Absolute fucking dogshit. Interesting tactical situations arise from introducing simple elements and then compounding them with newer elements. This shit goes all the way to Megaman level design.

>>48577953

Suppose you have adventurers exploring a Trollish cavern. Suppose they know goddamn well that fire hurts Trolls. Suppose after one introductory fight where a lone Troll notices them and gets burned the fuck up, we introduce the concept of gas. Oh yeah, this cavern goes right into a gas pocket. Introduce it easy at first; when you strike a torch, it blasts with unexpected yet ultimately harmless force. You can smell gas in the air. As a GM, you decide that it's heavier than air, so you introduce rooms with differing heights and vantage points, with low gullies carved into the rocky floor and high plateaus serving as cavernous watch towers, and you establish that the higher you go, the less the gas will widely augment fire, but the lower to the ground, the more explosive and destructive it will be, very easily causing friendly fire or otherwise blasting the party. Now we have interesting terrain which the PCs can take advantage of if they can keep their distance from the Trolls and lure them into low ground areas, or drastically complicate matters if they're caught in low ground themselves, forcing them to perform tactical retreats to high ground where they can use their fire more safely.

Now what if we introduce Troll Shamans to the mix, who will cast protective magics on fellow Trolls that help them resist flame? Suddenly the PCs really want to kill the Shamans because they'll make Trolls far harder to kill, further complicating matters. You have to weigh tactical choices. What a novel fucking concept. All without having to fucking say "UHHH DUDE LOL YOUR CHARACTER DOESN'T KNOW FIRE HURTS THINGS OKAY".

INSTEAD OF MAKING EVERYONE IN THE FUCKING PARTY ACT LIKE RETARDS, YOU COMPOUND MULTIPLE ELEMENTS, EACH THAT ARE SIMPLE AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD, TO PRODUCE AN INTELLECTUALLY SATISFYING SCENARIO THAT MUST BE PUZZLED THROUGH, INSTEAD OF "ROLL TO SEE IF YOU KNOW THE ACHILLES HEEL."

THIS IS HOW YOU BUILD INTERESTING DUNGEONS, SHIT GMS. TAKE FUCKING NOTES.

Who cares

>>48577995
Dude, are you the dumbfuck who wrote the blog in OP?

File: why.jpg (62KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 960x600px

>>48556013
I agree 100%. Metagaming is the DM's fault.

Want to know why?

BECAUSE YOU'RE RUNNING SOMEONE ELSE'S FUCKING GAME

STOP RUNNING ADVENTURE PATHS AND GAME MODULES

STOP USING OFFICIAL SETTINGS

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (49KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1920x1080px

>>48580128

No, but I have this sneaking suspicion that fact won't stop you from namecalling and shitposting to make up for the absence of an argument.

>>48573220
>Playing Curse of Strahd
>Get quest to find missing Gypsy daughter.
>Myself and our Cleric go about town trying to find a lead on where this little girl might be.
>Found out little but discovered a local fisherman/town drunk and a few hunter's frequently go out of town.
>Decide to question them seeing as the girl's tracks disappeared in the woods close by.
>Suddenly our Dragonborn Barbarian/Druid (who was in the Inn the whole time during our investigation.) Decides to go up north to the lake nearby (where the fisherman always fishes at.
>Gets there and promptly asks for a boat and asks some nearby guys where the fisherman was.
>He rows out towards him then proceeds to stare at his boat failing perception check after perception check until finally he spots the guys cloth sack wiggle.
>Panicking the fisherman quickly begins to row away.
>Our Dragonborn decides it would be best to use his firebreath.
>Burns the fisherman to death...
> ...Also sets the god damn boat on fire and we can hear the screaming of the little girl as she burns to death.
>He then brings the girls charred corpse back to shore and buries her, then tells the rest of the party the fisherman killed her.

We all knew he was meta gaming and it was our fault for not calling it out sooner. Turns out the last group he was in he already did this part of the campaign and new where to find the girl. And yes, he literally did just keep asking to re-roll perception checks on the boat.

>>48580233
You're right, I disagree with you and do not wish to commit to the labor to explain to you why you are wrong and why your mother wishes she got an abortion. I simple have nothing to gain from this.

>>48580324

>I'm angry and irrational and also you're wrong

Alright then.

File: 6816656-zen-wallpaper-hd.jpg (1008KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 1920x1200px

>>48580342
But I am not angry cuck boy, I am zen.

>>48575426
What if it was literally everyone else's first time against a troll? What then?

>>48580395

Then it's still gay gameplay. See >>48577953 and
>>48577995. Establishing simple facts and then making interesting use of them leads to far more interesting gameplay than "roll to see if you know Werewolves are hurt by silver."

>>48580324
Probably because you're objectively wrong. You won't be missed.

>>48580446
But your mom misses me every day.

>>48580444
>Establishing simple facts and then making interesting use of them leads to far more interesting gameplay than "roll to see if you know Werewolves are hurt by silver."
But then you're robbing the initial players of the discovery of a creature that regenerates unless hit with a specific damage type, which is surprisingly unique in D&D lore. The entire other post is an interesting dungeon, but only for players who have experienced the Troll scenario before. For new players who are playing for the first time, it's a valuble experience to deal with the troll vanilla in an appropriate environment, and the fresh Troll encounter can be an entire session in and of itself, as >>48573038 describes.

You're saying it's okay to take newbies and throw them into a complex as fuck mess like >>48577995 ?? Aren't you just being selfish at that point?

>>48580519
>You're saying it's okay to take newbies and throw them into a complex as fuck mess like >>48577995 ??

>Trolls are weak to fire
>Gas explodes when fire is near it. More gas, more kablooy.
>Troll shamans can make Trolls endure fire

I say this without even a hint of malice, but genuine concern.

Are you actually retarded?

>>48580545
>I find the concept easy to understand
>This means the concept is never complex!

You have 3 different concepts overlaying on top of each other. That's complexity.

Are you that autist that goes into dark souls threads on /v/ and says that they're all "easy"?

>>48580545

In fact, hang on, because it's not fair to your post to stop there, even though I unironically think you may be retarded.

"The discovery" is not interesting. It's a fact players learn and proceed to exploit to their advantage. We're not talking about literal babies here taking their first steps into the marvelous world of discovery here, wide-eyed and excited about learning such fun facts as Sunlight = Warm, Sparkly = Pretty, or whatever. We're talking about adults.

If you were to run a setting where zombies are killed by shooting them in the neck instead of the head, nobody fucking cares. There is no joy of discovery here. There's a moment of "Oh, I get it," and then you move on. Pretending that learning one of the fundamental aspects of a setting is something to be celebrated is missing the forest for the trees.

>>48580576

No, it's not "easy," but calling it a "mess" or "complex as fuck" is disingenuous in the extreme. The POINT is that it's not easy.

But pretending that communicating three extremely simple concepts and combining them to get interesting problems to solve is somehow above the capacities of your average P&P-playing adult makes you, again, sound fucking retarded.

These are design guidelines that went into the original Megaman, designed for literal children, for fuck's sake.

>>48556072
>What parts do you think are wrong?
>theangrygm.com
Probably all of it.

>>48580728

Good argument, friend.

>>48580679
>"The discovery" is not interesting
To you. The discovery is not interesting to you. Which is why I called you selfish to begin with.

>We're talking about adults.
We're talking about first time players specifically, which may actually include children as young as 8, or even 40 year-olds who have never touched a game before in their life. YOU are assuming we are talking about adults who have had years of experience playing games, specifically D&D.

>If you were to run a setting where zombies are killed by shooting them in the neck instead of the head, nobody fucking cares. There is no joy of discovery here.
Incorrect. Proof: Dead Space.

Zombies, except shooting them in the head does nothing, you have to shoot them in the limbs to cut them off. The fact that Dead Space sold well enough to get two sequels should speak for itself.

>but calling it a "mess" or "complex as fuck" is disingenuous in the extreme
No it's not. Something simple would be a singular concept, such as "There is an enemy to defeat". You're making the situation objectively more complex by adding complexities to the situation. "The enemy can only be defeated by a certain element". "But that element becomes taboo in these areas". "There are also special enemies that protect other enemies from this element".

Hard to understand != complex. Newer players trying to deal with these complexities may very well run into difficulties that are a little more than they can handle and will just seem like the DM is bullying them.

>P&P-playing adult makes you, again, sound fucking retarded.
The fact that you didn't understand the point of view of the new players playing and insist on calling me retarded actually makes you sound autistic. Actually autistic.

>These are design guidelines that went into the original Megaman, designed for literal children, for fuck's sake.
Mega Man's design philosophy does not use enemies with special weaknesses for platforming challenges.

>>48580778
>Incorrect. Proof: Dead Space.
>Zombies, except shooting them in the head does nothing, you have to shoot them in the limbs to cut them off. The fact that Dead Space sold well enough to get two sequels should speak for itself.

It really doesn't, because of a myriad of other factors are at work in what generates interest enough for good game sales and sequels. It is actually up to you here to demonstrate that "Wow zombies you have to shoot the limbs off of instead of blow the heads off of to kill, so cool" is any kind of factor, let alone the significant one that your argument is framing it to be, which is essentially impossible for you to do, so I have no idea why you would throw out this kind of red herring.

>Mega Man's design philosophy does not use enemies with special weaknesses for platforming challenges.

Besides being blatantly wrong on this point (boss fights, enemies being more susceptible to attack from the different angles of attack permitted by the unique weapons instead of the somewhat limited angles offered from the arm cannon, etc), you, again, miss the forest for the trees.

The fact that they have a "special weakness" (read: a weakness easily exploited by anyone who knows about it, which is basically everyone) is immaterial; they act in a specific manner, and have a method through which they are especially susceptible to attack. These set up distinct and obvious tactics that any sensible person is going to utilize when encountering them. Much like someone will jump off a falling platform towards a different platform in Megaman to not die, someone is going to set a Troll on fire to make sure it actually dies, provided you want that Troll dead, which is a pretty reasonable thing to want.

Set up an obvious course of action (use fire to beat Troll, leap off falling platform), complicate it with other elements at play (gas in the area, flying enemies diving and firing at you).

This is literally game design 101.

So, /tg/ doesn't like Metagaming. But what does /tg/ think about 『Metagame Theurgy』?

>Running a game for four players
>Goblin remains begin to develop boils after death
>These boils hatch more Goblins
>Trolls are resistant to extreme temperatures
>They regenerate missing organs and limbs over several nights
>Only way to kill them is with sunlight

No one knew either of these things going in to the game. They learned and adapted quickly, and all but one actually commented that they enjoyed the new take on both enemies.

None of them went around splashing witches with water, setting trolls on fire, using lightning magic on living machines, or garlic on vampires.

Best part was that since I had included so many unknown factors, they learned to constantly ask questions and look for more information in game. They learned to work together and plan ahead. They always prepared for the worst case scenario. No more defaulting to out of game knowledge.

It was great.

>>48580219
>BECAUSE YOU'RE RUNNING SOMEONE ELSE'S FUCKING GAME
>STOP RUNNING ADVENTURE PATHS AND GAME MODULES
>STOP USING OFFICIAL SETTINGS


This, christ.

>>48580990
>It really doesn't, because of a myriad of other factors are at work in what generates interest enough for good game sales and sequels

The other elements being horror, space, and third-person over the shoulder perspective. All of which have been done separately and sometimes together in many other games. The necromorphs are an extremely unique element in the game which isn't perfect proof, but you're not going to get better control variables than that. You can also just look up how popular the necromorphs are as well. Simply put, they made the game stand out way more due to the unique element added in.

>you, again, miss the forest for the trees.
Not really. I ran out of letters in the post and decided it wasn't really that special of a point to clarify, but since you're so intent on flexing how wrong you are at every turn, let me explain all the different ways you are wrong.

>Besides being blatantly wrong on this point
1. No, I'm not wrong on this point. There are no enemies in Mega Man games except for several forms of Wily and a few Wily-Castle minibosses that are outright immune to the Mega Buster and a number of other weapons, and even these are rare and may only show up once per game.

2. Minibosses with special weakpoints like the head do exist, but these enemies are never used in special platforming segments, often being room filling minibosses. The one potential enemy you could claim this is different for is one in Airman's stage where he has a giant fan on his stomach that blows you back, but his only platforming challenge is one time where he's situated in front of a hole. Meaning you can't jump over him. That's it. That's the challenge.

cont.

>>48581294

3. Mega Man was never "designed" for children. It might have been marketed towards them, but it was designed for the Devs, experienced adults. Iwata explains this in an Iwata asks interview with Arino of Game Center CX that back then, Game Devs were both designers and testers. So they test their own games, get good at it, and up the difficulty. Mega Mans 1-4 are notoriously hard in difficulty. To a point that most people are generally impressed if you beat them at an age younger than 14, if at all.

4. The process of "Show enemy, show platform, combine" is adding complexities as the stage continues on. While this makes for an interesting teaching game, it doesn't necessarily make it good game design for new players who might not have the necessary experience from beginner games to deal with these challenges. I would never submit Mega Man to someone who had not played a lot of action platformers in general, and definitely never beginner gamers.

>This is literally game design 101.
5. You're right. Most of us have graduated past that though and no longer get our game design lessons from Aaron "OoT sucks because I don't use items" Hanson.

>>48581294
>and even these are rare and may only show up once per game.
So, I'm right, and you are wrong.
>The one potential enemy you could claim this is different for is one in Airman's stage where he has a giant fan on his stomach that blows you back, but his only platforming challenge is one time where he's situated in front of a hole. Meaning you can't jump over him. That's it. That's the challenge.
So, I'm right, and you are wrong.

>Mega Man was never "designed" for children.
>Literally using in-house testing as the basis on which your "it wasn't for kids" argument will stand, which one could ostensibly argue that no game is for kids, as most testers will not be children purely by virtue of not being employed by a company
>Ignoring entirely the possibility of literally just asking developer's kids to test the game
This is getting sad now.

>I would never submit Mega Man to . . . beginner gamers.
Do you live in Africa, per chance? I see no other way that one person could be so completely surrounded insufferable retards, incapable of even the most basic pattern recognition skills or higher thought processes, to the point that it would color his view of the simple logical capacities of his fellow man this badly.

You are not entitled to make a singular point of "advanced" game design when you clearly don't even understand its most basics, to say nothing of your spending most of your post on trying, poorly, to correct me on the details of Megaman instead of making any substantial point.

Your points all literally boil down to opinions and "but players are retards."

>>48581394
>I have run out of arguments and will resort to ad hominum

k.

>>48581420

My argument is that you yourself admitted that I am right on all of the points related to Megaman I have made, and you just think people are too retarded to understand a game with two buttons, directional control, and the most well conveyed level design patterns in gaming history.

Again, your points all literally boil down to opinions and "but players are retards." If your players are retards, well, my pity is with you, but that does not mean "roll to find the achilles heel" is not still lame, and that designing encounters around established facts and then complicating things is not superior.

>>48581467
>My argument is that you yourself admitted that I am right on all of the points
You're actually not. You just claimed "victory" as a cheap way out of a corner. None of the special weakness bosses are in a platforming challenge segment which coincides with my original statement. The only miniboss like enemy that is NEAR a platforming challenge is 1 singular fan enemy, and honestly I wouldn't even actually consider it a platforming challenge, I'd consider it a forced fight, but I was throwing you a bone because you seemed to need it.

>and the most well conveyed level design patterns in gaming history.
lolno. Stop sucking ego's dick for a minute. There are TONS of other games that deserve that title far more than Mega Man, and I'm speaking as a guy who meticulously played through all of them.

>Again, your points all literally boil down to opinions and "but players are retards."
No, my points boil down to "You're robbing beginner players valuable life experiences because you have autism and cannot see things from their point of view".

Which you have yet to prove me wrong on.

So, yeah. You're kind of autistic.

I'm sorry?

File: cat sweet jesus_1.jpg (9KB, 251x188px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 251x188px

>>48581523
>You're robbing beginner players valuable life experiences
>"Trolls are weak to fire"
>'Valuable life experience'

I'm sorry. I can no longer take this conversation seriously. I cannot possibly begin to emphasize or converse with someone who has such rock-bottom expectations of the intelligence or maturity of his players.

Feel free to assert victory. I conclude by saying that players are intelligent and deserve the mild respect of good game design. I am sorry to see you do not agree and would rather harp on about how badly their mind will be blown when garlic repels vampires.

File: That's Nice.jpg (30KB, 245x229px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 245x229px

>>48581558
>I've run out of arguments and have been backed into a corner!
>I know! I'll protect my fragile ego by pretending I won! That means I won't have to reaffirm my poor life choices!

K.

>>48557624
the mongols(known to propagate islam)owned all of china and most of asia around the time they attempted to conquer japan.

so i think its safe to assume they would have experienced some exposure.

In these threads you can always tell who has only played online and who has played with friends.

Friends can't be dropped from a campaign, they can't be ridiculed or criticized harshly and they certainly can't be yelled at to change their ways. Unless you're autistic and don't mind breaking friendships over a stupid game.

Honestly its kind of pathetic when people say "hurr just kick them out" as the easiest response to any inter-group conflict, because we all know that you're kicking absolute strangers who you'll never see again out of a Roll20 group, because no one wants to be around you to give you a chance to kick them out of an IRL group. I can't imagine playing RPGs with strangers, it must be really boring.

>>48581711
>Friends can't be dropped from a campaign, they can't be ridiculed or criticized harshly and they certainly can't be yelled at to change their ways.

>He can't bant with his friends
>He doesn't have the openness and honesty with his friends to be able to speak what's on his mind

Nice "friends," fampai.

>>48581733
>bants
>changing someone

getaloadofthisretard.png

I speak my mind all the time with my friends, I'm just able to do it without ruining those decades long friendships because I'm not autistic like most of you.

>>48581761

>I'll pretend two unrelated sentences were related because it allows me to have a point
>Immediate backtracking on what he says to his "friends"

lol

>>48581801
>Two unrelated sentences
>Quoted literally one sentence
>Pretending to be smart

The fact is that the ideas you spergs post in these threads don't work with people sitting at a table with you.

>>48557556
>Do you think western people around the time of the Crusades just knew nothing at all of Islam or something?

Have you ever read 'the matter of france'? If you have, you might recall some really werd mentions regarding 'Apollo'. The greek god.

At the time of the crusades, it was a common belief among Christian nobility that Islam involved the worship of Apollo.

I'd argue that western people around the time of the crusades generally knew /less/ than nothing about Islam. Hell, I'd argue your average modern American on the street knows more about islam simply by virtue of 'lol, no bacon' and 'mohhamad was a pedophile omg' than crusaders did. At least we know who they worship, generally.

>>48581841
>mohhamad was a pedophile omg

What do *you* call marrying a prepubescent girl, exactly?

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Ages_of_Muhammads_Wives_at_Marriage#Aisha.27s_Age

>>48581841
And aren't nobles typically the most educated people within their kingdom? So it's entirely reasonable and safe to assume that those beneath them generally knew even less about a subject that's not related to their profession at all, yes?

>>48581862
>point of the post
>measureless empty space
>your head

>>48581711

I agree with you about not being able to drop friends from a campaign or yell at them until they stop sucking (ironically I am running my games with said friends online because we all moved away from our hometown) but what the fuck kind of friends do you have that can't take ridicule or harsh criticism?

>>48581862
>What do *you* call marrying a prepubescent girl, exactly?

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that the age was made younger afterwards to desperately avoid the crushing reality that, besides aisha, literally none of Mohammad wives were virgins before he married them.

I don't actually have anything against pedophiles mind, it's more that the "SHE WAS 9 OKAY" thing strikes me as the incredibly pathetic and desperate wailing of some tribal Arab defending Mohammad's honor.

>>48581905
Obviously we have different ideas of what ridicule and harsh criticism mean. I meant it more in the way of causing them to feel bad and unwanted for the rest of the session, as a minimum, rather than light hearted ribbing that is forgotten less than a minute later. But even ribbing another player or directly criticizing him isn't usually the best solution to whatever problem the group has, in my experience.

>>48581711
there are tabletop conventions and clubs but they play nothing but mtg and pathfinder,maybe a couple rich 40kids in the corner.

one in my city actually.i just prefer 250+ neckbeards over the internet where they cant sit on me if i boot them.

>>48581955
>I meant it more in the way of causing them to feel bad and unwanted for the rest of the session, as a minimum, rather than light hearted ribbing that is forgotten less than a minute later. But even ribbing another player or directly criticizing him isn't usually the best solution to whatever problem the group has, in my experience.

Oh, okay, that's different than what I was thinking when I read your post, yeah.

One of my friends has real powergaming problem and we rag on him about it constantly. It usually keeps him in check, but we don't overdo it to the point of making him feel like he's not wanted, or anything.

>>48581979
>rag

afrofriend detected

enjoy your stay my freind XDDDD

>>48582091
>afrofriend detected

Shiiiieeeet

>>48556013
Im half asleep, so I'm not going to read the full article, but it seems like the author is blaming the GM for a lack of communication, and if everyone agrees not to metagame, then it IS a bad thing to metagame. And in that i kind of see their point, but if someone continues metagaming after understanding expectations, thats kinda shitty.

>>48581711
>In these threads you can always tell who has only played online and who has played with friends.
To be quite honest with you, I've cut off people who are really bad at the gaming table completely out of my life, including sundering previous friendships.

Gaming has this weird tendency to bring out a persons' inner personality, and it really shows in their day to day life where they get the minor, annoying personality traits from.

>Had a guy who would constantly be belligerent towards other players for not knowing the most "basic" of facts about the monster manual, even if they had never played the game before
>In day to day life, he acted incredibly smug and obnoxious whenever he was right, even hurting some people's feelings

>Had a guy who would whine and scream and piss and moan when even ONE wrong thing happened to his character, even if that wrong thing was him doing a specific action while everyone else at the table told him that it was stupid
>His day to day life, he was easily offended and whined about everything to a point where you'd have to put up with his bad behavior or deal with hours of him whining and bitching about you correcting him.

>Had a guy who wouldn't do ANYTHING in game. He would just sit there, go along with the party, and then if he HAD to make a choice, wait until someone made suggestions and then take the very first one that was available regardless of what it was
>Real life he was a social nobody that never contributed anything.

>Had a guy who tries to metagame EVERY single thing in the game's plot and narrative. "Oh, this guy we just met 20 minutes ago? Yeah he's totally gonna backstab us." regardless of any evidence in-game of this. Constantly took contrived, unrealistic paths just to metagame the "gimmick".
>Real life haughty and smug as fuck, talks down and argues with everyone, assumes that he is always right. Deeply involved in conspiracy theories.

Bad at the game = Bad person in real life.

>>48582117
masterchiefs

>>48582133
>>48582155
consecutive dubs

magic or nah?

>>48556296
Ah, Player Agency is so beautiful.

My favorite metagaming involves gazebos

>>48560300
>using the you meme that was invented by /s4s/ in 2016
kill yourself

>>48582632

What?

>>48582155
This. You don't need horoscopes, phrenology, palmistry, or any other sort of psuedo-scientific woo to discover somebody's real personality. Just stick them in a PnP game and observe.

>>48557825
Ah yes, but then you get the cuntbags who're pissed you called your three foot tall ice mutant who's weak to sonic damage a troll

>>48585612
>you called your three foot tall ice mutant who's weak to sonic damage a troll
As long as you had a chance to make your Knowledge check when the word "troll" came up, I see no problem with that. And anybody who does can feel free to fuck off.

>>48580219
I can't believe someone would even consider doing this past their first attempt at GMing

>>48556013
>>http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/
>> Asshole Paladin and the Asshole Thief
> GM's fault for allowing something stupid that will ruin the game. thief should be automatically caught in the act, party wasn't born yesterday

>> Asshole GM and Troll
> GM's fault. Either the monster is supposed to be unconquerable, or the party is supposed to know how to defeat it, or the party is supposed to figure it out beforehand. If the monster is supposed to be unconquerable or unconquerable without knowing its dark secret, make this a troll variant weak to another element. But if the troll is supposed to be defeatable without special stuff, it doesn't matter how they down it. even if they forget fire or acid, make the troll fail its morale check.

>>48585782
Yeah, because obviously everybody has all the time in the world to prep their own adventures. Nobody could possibly have a legitimate reason to want an adventure with all the time-consuming prep work done for them.

>>48557974
>FOOD ANALOGY
topkek.rtf

>>48584458
kill yourself

>>48556013
Impossible to enforce anyi-metagaming rules are impossible to enforce.

If the players are legitimately unaware of something IC that iLet slip OOC I just remind them they don't know that IC if it factors into their planning.

File: maxresdefault[2].jpg (106KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1280x720px

>>48590115

>>48557974
>People over for dinner act out as much as people over for pretend shenanigans

File: 4887400-1194929469-MovxP[2].jpg (32KB, 545x545px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 545x545px

>>48556013
>problematic

Someone got triggered by their GM.

black

>>48556072
>Oh, okay. What parts do you think are wrong?
I'm guessing it's
>>48556039
>Metagaming is usually bad but you'd have to foolish to assume small amounts are poisonous, or even avoidable.
That part he thinks is wrong.

Basically the premise of the article is rooted in the idea that any problems players introduce are ultimately the GM's fault, because the GM is the final arbiter of what does or doesn't come into the group.

Anyone who has ever actually been in a group, or interacted with human beings, knows social dynamics are not that simplistic.

>>48556402
>a game wherein you try to "justify" knowing a thing you already know
This is where you're wrong. At best, you (the player) are justifying your character knowing something you already knew.

This assumes that characters and their players have a different perspective, understanding, and knowledge set.

Of course, in a ROLE PLAYING GAME, you are expected to PLAY a ROLE that is distinct from you as the player, and sometimes that includes not taking advantage of knowledge you personally know, but the ROLE you are PLAYING would not. That is not metagaming, and if you do come to know some OOC knowledge, the goal of the game is *not* then to "justify" it so you can use it IC. I posit that anyone who does see it that way has fundamentally misunderstood the point of playing a role, and thus, has misunderstood RPGs.

>>48556524
>For example, if your players are fighting their first troll in a standard fantasy setting, they may decide to use fire to kill it.
I feel like if you grew up in a setting where trolls exist and are weak to fire, that's probably not some kind of super secret knowledge. It's plausible at least one person in a group would know that, ESPECIALLY if traveling in a troll-infested area.

>>48598789
I've always it's a really poor example, despite being the standard one. Most things are weak to being on fire.

>>48598899
Fair enough, but sans a specific example, it's still worth remembering that just because a player knows something from an OOC source (such as a sourcebook), doesn't mean PCs can't know it from some means like common knowledge. Indeed, players should be given plenty of OOC information if they can be trusted (as any functional adult should) to reasonably judge if the information should be acted on or not while playing their role. It's up to the GM and the group as a whole to decide how they interpret the setting and thus how much knowledge is appropriate.

For me, I usually play in modern or scifi settings, and assume any given PC can at least Google things, and so as a GM feel a need to justify when I think something shouldn't be easy to discover by characters who have smartphones and even a few minutes to think.

>>48556524
Don't trolls regenerate from wounds? That's why you need to burn them - to stop them regenerating, right?

Because, I don't know about you, but years of movies, cartoons and videogames have taught me that the best way to kill a constantly-regenerating enemy is to burn away every trace of them. Even if the players don't know about trolls specifically, it seems weird to cry metagaming when they resort to fire.

>>48556013
First of all, Angry GM is wrong. He lets players decide on their own if their PC knows the troll's weakness. And he derides the Knowledge roll as unfun. But nothing keeps a player from inventing a clever backstory after a successful Knowledge roll. Granted, an unsuccessful Knowledge roll prevents a fun backstory. But at least it sets up a more challenging encounter.

>>48598775
this. if you are unsure whether to use a piece of real life knowledge, ask your GM. he will either permit/reject it outright or ask for a knowledge roll. he knows what's best for the story.

>>48561676
>Telling the DM that it's THEIR fault is horse shit.

What it is, specifically, is clickbait. It's a headline designed to get your attention and piss you off. "Hey, I'm a GM," you're supposed to say, "and metagaming is NOT my fault! Why does this guy say it is?" And then you click to see what he's talking about.

>>48598945
The problem I have is that a weakness that is both readily known and easily exploitable doesn't make the challenge any more interesting, it just adds hoops the players need to jump through. On the other hand, "you must pass a knowledge check to figure out the monster is weak to X or else you cannot kill it" is lame, too.

The way I see it, if the weakness is commonly know, it needs to be challenging in some way to exploit - EVERYONE knows werewolves are weak to silver bullets, but who the fuck has silver bullets? Otherwise, it needs to be something the players can figure out themselves with a bit of critical thinking and trial-and-error, like a murder-puzzle.

File: hes-right-alt.jpg (34KB, 426x257px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 426x257px

>>48599097

>>48599120
What if it's not meant to be not-lame on its own. It's just a dice roll, man. And the result of the roll determines whether you can invent a cool backstory or whether you face a more challenging encounter.

There's a few more aspects:
A. Without a dice roll, players seem more compelled to invent a cool backstory - as thank you payment in return for getting an advantage without a roll. But nothing keeps them from doing that after a successful roll.
B. If you feel like your PCs life is actually on the line in this encounter, this is really an exciting Knowledge roll. If you feel, that this encounter is just to spice up the action and you'll survive either way, then of course it's not very thrilling.

>>48599182
1) Their backstory should already account for why they have the knowledge skill they are rolling for in the first place. It seems strange to me that you would write down "Knowledge: Religion" on your sheet and not have any idea why your character would have that until well into the game.

2) If the monster can only be killed by X, and the only way for the party to know that is to pass a knowledge check, then what do you do if they fail? Either you put the party's success on a single dice roll (which is bad GMing, IMO), or you let them keep rolling, which means they'll figure it out eventually, which means why not just tell them up-front?

3) When it comes to a fight, there's more going on than just your stats. You need things like tactics, positioning, threat assessment, etc. to see you through - very rarely does an encounter come down to "roll strength to win." Why, then, would you design a problem that comes down to "roll intelligence to win?" Knowledge stats should offer relevant information and hints, but if the problem you've designed comes down to "they smash their statblock against it until something breaks," then it's not a very compelling problem.

>>48599062
>But nothing keeps a player from inventing a clever backstory after a successful Knowledge roll. Granted, an unsuccessful Knowledge roll prevents a fun backstory. But at least it sets up a more challenging encounter.

You're wrong for two reasons,

A: It's not actually a more challenging encounter to have no idea how go about winning the encounter. It's just lame. It's like walking boardgame night without being told what you're playing or what the rules are. You just meaninglessly flail until you stumble upon the right answer. This is not an enjoyable encounter for either party.

B: As pointed out earlier, working off of the given assumption that PCs know how to win the encounter, but complicating how they can go about it, makes for far better encounter design than "roll to see if you know the Achilles Heel." See the previous Troll Cavern example given earlier in the thread.

The only reason you demand a roll in the first place is because you feel the need to make players "earn" the knowledge of how to actually win the fight, even though it is clearly better for them to know how the rules of engagement work, both for your own encounter design and for their enjoyment.

>read angry gm post
>APPENDIX N FUCKING SUCKS, NOBODY UNDER THE AGE OF 50 LIKES FAFHRD AND THE GREY MOUSER

well that was the fastest i have ever disregarded a persons opinion before

>>48556013
>>No matter how you slice it, metagaming is your fault.

No, most meta-gaming is the fault of the game itself. Meta-gaming is when someone finds op game mechanics and abuses them to make themselves more powerful.

>>48602209
>Meta-gaming is when someone finds op game mechanics and abuses them to make themselves more powerful.

You are not even close to being correct. That is optimization.

Meta-gaming is using out of game knowledge to influence ingame decisions. Taking the game outside of the game. Meta.