Post/Author/DateTime	Post
fuji257 04-17-07, 12:02 AM	Sorry, I'm a noob. In my game the other day my character needed to get out of a room fast. His speed is 40ft. The only exit available was a straight line to an open door but this was impossible to traverse without traveling through a threatened square. However, the creature (a Land Shark) that "threatened" the square was battling two other party members which had it flanked. I don't think that would (realistically) present an AOO at least not without the Land Shark presenting another AOO to the two flanking party members. Am I missing something or is my DM just blood thirsty?
ibayboy 04-17-07, 01:02 AM	Being flanked in no way prevents you from threatening and therefore taking AoO's. Nor does taking one provoke an AoO itself.
Droma 04-17-07, 01:53 AM	Sorry but those are the rules. While flavor wise I tend to agree with you, if wizards made an exception for every little thing the rules section of the players handbook and DMG would be another 100 or so pages longer.
jokey665 04-17-07, 03:27 AM	Sorry but those are the rules. While flavor wise I tend to agree with you, if wizards made an exception for every little thing the rules section of the players handbook and DMG would be another 100 or so pages longer. That. If you're really worried about every little thing, go play FATAL.
Neutronium_Dragon 04-17-07, 06:36 AM	It's not a good idea to try to "read in" more than what the rules actually say. There's nothing about flanking which prevents you from threatening. Now, if one of the other party members had been *grappling* the land shark, you'd have been able to get by it because creatures in a grapple don't threaten. (On the other hand, grappling a land shark is a Really Bad Idea for most PCs.)
mvincent 04-17-07, 02:32 PM	A related tip: Since the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) say "You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you", you could possibly use your allies as soft cover when moving through threatened areas and thus avoid AoO's.
Shadowhowler 04-17-07, 02:58 PM	As has already been stated here above, your DM was going by the book on this one. This is one of the problems I have with the system of AoO as it stands right now. Seems to me if something is locked in combat, covered on two sides... and then something eles races passed it, and it stops to take a swing at that thing, that would be just as likely, in fact MORE likely, to provoke a AoO from the two covering the creature then the person running past the creature originaly. However, the RAW are behind it the way your DM worked it. The system for AoO is one of the first things getting a house rule treatment when I run a 3.5 game.
Empiro 04-17-07, 04:17 PM	A related tip: Since the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) say "You cant execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you", you could possibly use your allies as soft cover when moving through threatened areas and thus avoid AoO's. I've seen this claimed before, but under the section on Cover -- the "Soft Cover" subsection seems to indicate that creatures only provide cover against ragned attacks, meaning that you'd still to take AOOs. I have to agree that the section seems to be a bit ambiguous, though.
mvincent 04-17-07, 04:32 PM	the "Soft Cover" subsection seems to indicate that creatures only provide cover against ragned attacksThe rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm) also say: "When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks." and (in case it comes up): if the creature doesn't have reach, you're very unlikey to try to use your allies as cover.
CrawlingChaos 04-17-07, 04:33 PM	An attack of oportunity on that situation would be very unrealistic and I would allow you to slip through (If I was the Dm, that is). You could use tumble to pass throught the threatened square and, given the enemy's situation, I would reduce the dc for the tumble check. Anyway, DnD is not famous for realism and DM's should consider each case on it own merit and open exception on the rules.
Empiro 04-17-07, 04:37 PM	The rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm) also say: "When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks." and (in case it comes up): if the creature doesn't have reach, you're very unlikey to try to use your allies as cover. Ah, good point. I hadn't seen that part.
Nom 04-17-07, 07:35 PM	I am making the mistake of arguing "realism", but anyway...Seems to me if something is locked in combat, covered on two sides... and then something eles races passed it, and it stops to take a swing at that thing, that would be just as likely, in fact MORE likely, to provoke a AoO from the two covering the creature then the person running past the creature originaly.The "thing" in question is Huge (literally). Two little things are poking at it, and it's flailing about on all sides. Another little thing runs in, so it swings at it too - the difference being that this third thing is primarily moving rather than fighting itself, so a blow that normally wouldn't have landed finds an opening. The land shark doesn't really care whether you're defending yourself or not; it just takes a swing at you because you might be another attacker. Unfortunately for you, you're not, and thus the swing becomes an AoO (and is resolved as an attack rather than being ignored as background interaction).
SALDAR 04-17-07, 07:54 PM	Flanking gives the flanker a +2 bonus to attack, it does nothing to reduce the flankee's combat abilities. If the flankee is still aware of his surroundings and still attacks into threatened squares without penalty, why should he be unable to make an AoO?
Shadowhowler 04-17-07, 10:49 PM	I am making the mistake of arguing "realism", but anyway...The "thing" in question is Huge (literally). Two little things are poking at it, and it's flailing about on all sides. Another little thing runs in, so it swings at it too - the difference being that this third thing is primarily moving rather than fighting itself, so a blow that normally wouldn't have landed finds an opening. The land shark doesn't really care whether you're defending yourself or not; it just takes a swing at you because you might be another attacker. Unfortunately for you, you're not, and thus the swing becomes an AoO (and is resolved as an attack rather than being ignored as background interaction). A Good point, I did not take the creatures size into account. For the record, I am one of the people you can safely use realisim in your discussions with, as I often do myself. :) I was basing my annoyence off an example I was discussing with a friend of mine the other day, wehn talking about AoO's. Similar example, except with humans/humanoids. One guy, stuck in-between two other guys, fighting for his life. He is desperatly trying to keep himself alive against the two sided onslought of two fighters swing swords at him from both sides. Suddonly, the Elvish archer runs past, trying to get from point a to point be at a full run. Amidts the nerve-wracking fight for his life to fend off both attacks, the guy in the middle sees the elf blasting past him, and swings his sword our to the side to slash the elf in the guts. I have two problems with this. 1. Seems to me the guy in the middle has his hands full and his attention already split... dosn't seem likely to me he has the time to take a whack at the passing elf. 2. If he DID take the time to swing out at the passing elf, seems to me the two swords he is already locked in combat with would find that to be an opening, and just as likely get AoO's on his now distracted and off balance a$$. This sort of situation is one of many problems I have with the AoO system as it stands right now...
Nom 04-18-07, 12:29 AM	You're misrepresenting the situation. The third party runs into combat and then turns his back and runs out. The fact he didn't actually want to enter combat is irrelevant; once he enters the threatened area he's a potential combatant and is thus subject to the normal combat rules. The defender says "oh heck, not another one!" and waves a sword at him to keep him honest. Unfortunately for our interloper, his guard is down and the otherwise weak blow might catch him a good hit. A natural consequence of what you seem to be suggesting is that a 3rd ally entering combat should immediately provoke an AoO on the defender, which isn't really a desirable rule.
fuji257 04-18-07, 01:41 AM	A natural consequence of what you seem to be suggesting is that a 3rd ally entering combat should immediately provoke an AoO on the defender, which isn't really a desirable rule. I don't think anyone would suggest that rule. I also don't understand comments about adding a zillion more pages just to strengthen the basic combat rules to better match obvious logic. How about: "A Flanked Player cannot make an attack of opportunity, unless . . ." then enter a few LOGICAL exceptions and/or skill checks. A paragraph, maybe, but hardly anything complicated. I'm new to all this and I find rules (or lack thereof) that defy basic logic in a "strategic" game to be very distracting to game-play and makes the game harder to learn than it should be. I also find it difficult to believe that a game with such a huge following with years of refined revisions has such basic fundamental flaws. But what do I know; I'm just a noob.
fuji257 04-18-07, 01:51 AM	I am making the mistake of arguing "realism", but anyway...The "thing" in question is Huge (literally). Two little things are poking at it, and it's flailing about on all sides. Another little thing runs in, so it swings at it too - the difference being that this third thing is primarily moving rather than fighting itself, so a blow that normally wouldn't have landed finds an opening. The land shark doesn't really care whether you're defending yourself or not; it just takes a swing at you because you might be another attacker. Unfortunately for you, you're not, and thus the swing becomes an AoO (and is resolved as an attack rather than being ignored as background interaction). I see your point and concede it was a good call. I would beg to differ had the Land Shark been a humanoid type.
Shadowhowler 04-18-07, 03:29 AM	I see your point and concede it was a good call. I would beg to differ had the Land Shark been a humanoid type. As would I. However, the RAW would still support the call in that situation, which does not make sense to me, hence my desire to alter the rules around AoO's.
Shadowhowler 04-18-07, 03:33 AM	You're misrepresenting the situation. The third party runs into combat and then turns his back and runs out. The fact he didn't actually want to enter combat is irrelevant; once he enters the threatened area he's a potential combatant and is thus subject to the normal combat rules. The defender says "oh heck, not another one!" and waves a sword at him to keep him honest. Unfortunately for our interloper, his guard is down and the otherwise weak blow might catch him a good hit. A natural consequence of what you seem to be suggesting is that a 3rd ally entering combat should immediately provoke an AoO on the defender, which isn't really a desirable rule. He dosn't 'run into combat and then run out'... he runs right past it! He blasts right bast three guys fighting, two guys beating on one guy no less. That one guy has his attention MORE the focused on fighting off the two guys... he should not have the time to take a REALLY fast stab at a guy passing by at a full run, and if he WAS able to pull that off somehow, it seems WAY more then logical that the guys paying attention to him would take advantage of his turning his attantion away from THEIR battle to make him pay for it. Look, if you like the rules the way they are writen, good for you. However, there is no way that I can see you making a realistic argument for it working that way in the example I gave. So... does it work that way in RAW? Absolutly. Do I think that makes any sense? Hell no. This is why I'm going to address AoO's and how they work.
Kintara 04-18-07, 03:46 AM	Consider that unless the enemy in question has Combat Reflexes, burning his one and only AoO to tag an opponent running by does have consequences for the other two characters. It means that the enemy now has no more AoOs, and the other two combatants can now move where they like, quaff a potion, bull rush the enemy, punch him in the face, etc.. Edit: The simple fact of the matter is that flanking is a pretty light effect, unless there's a Rogue involved. It grants you a +2 to attack. That's pretty much it. Heck, being attacked by multiple opponents could easily be more penalizing. The reason it isn't is that D&D is a heroic game, and heroes fight lots of enemies, therefore the rules don't punish you very severely for being outnumbered. Consider enhancing the bonuses for outnumbering and flanking your opponent if you think it should be a more taxing situation. I'm happy the way it is.
CantripN 04-18-07, 04:20 AM	Ah, but you see, taking an AOO does leave him open to attack. Most people and monsters have only 1 AOO per round, and may choose when to use it. If I were in a fight to the death with 2 Fighters, I wouldn't waste mine on an Archer running past; I'd save it in case the Fighters pull out a potion, run away or anything else. By wasting my AOO on the Archer I allow the 2 Fighters to act more freely this round, probably harming me further. In short, it depends on the creature in question, but many would choose to ignore minor distractions. You don't HAVE to take an AOO. I don't stab my girlfriend when she hugs me while I'm making salad... I could, but I'd rather not.
Kintara 04-18-07, 02:05 PM	Ah, but you see, taking an AOO does leave him open to attack. Most people and monsters have only 1 AOO per round, and may choose when to use it. If I were in a fight to the death with 2 Fighters, I wouldn't waste mine on an Archer running past; I'd save it in case the Fighters pull out a potion, run away or anything else. By wasting my AOO on the Archer I allow the 2 Fighters to act more freely this round, probably harming me further. In short, it depends on the creature in question, but many would choose to ignore minor distractions. You don't HAVE to take an AOO. I don't stab my girlfriend when she hugs me while I'm making salad... I could, but I'd rather not.Psst! I just said that. ;) Darn, that's the second time that's happened to me recently. Maybe I should start posting my comments in orange or something. :D
Cifer 04-18-07, 03:03 PM	I agree with the posters saying the rules are fine as they are. Combat means making a lot more attacks than are represented in the rules because most of them are just quick little feints that make sure the enemy doesn't get too much time to breathe or is somewhat distracted (after all, you probably don't get flanking bonuses just by standing next to the guy). However, if one of those attacks is not parried, it goes straight through, which is precisely what an AoO is - an less parryable small attack.
Shadowhowler 04-18-07, 05:03 PM	Consider that unless the enemy in question has Combat Reflexes, burning his one and only AoO to tag an opponent running by does have consequences for the other two characters. It means that the enemy now has no more AoOs, and the other two combatants can now move where they like, quaff a potion, bull rush the enemy, punch him in the face, etc.. I am violently opposed to that sort of metagaming. I see players abuse that all the time as well... they will prupassly send in the guy with either the best AC, or best HP, or both... and have him draw the AoO so that, once it's gone, everyone eles can move freely about the creature without worry. Bulls#@t metagaming, pure and simple. We know it works that way... from our god like position above the map grid looking down at all the little mini's... in the heat of combat, tho, no sane fighters would work that way. It's a major slap in the face of good roleplaying.
Shadowhowler 04-18-07, 05:04 PM	Ah, but you see, taking an AOO does leave him open to attack. Most people and monsters have only 1 AOO per round, and may choose when to use it. If I were in a fight to the death with 2 Fighters, I wouldn't waste mine on an Archer running past; I'd save it in case the Fighters pull out a potion, run away or anything else. By wasting my AOO on the Archer I allow the 2 Fighters to act more freely this round, probably harming me further. In short, it depends on the creature in question, but many would choose to ignore minor distractions. You don't HAVE to take an AOO. I don't stab my girlfriend when she hugs me while I'm making salad... I could, but I'd rather not. See my post with my opinion of metagaming to see what I think of that.
CantripN 04-18-07, 05:35 PM	See my post with my opinion of metagaming to see what I think of that. It's not Metagaming! Game mechanics represent the experience of combat, and people are well aware of the concepts of openings and how quickly they may react. People also have the capacity to decide what constitutes a threat and what doesn't. An Archer running past is not a direct threat, and I'd ignore him in RL, too, unless I had the time for him.
mvincent 04-18-07, 05:55 PM	I am violently opposed to that sort of metagaming. Yet such fervor does not seem to add to your credibility. It's a major slap in the face of good roleplaying.Actually, a serious 'role'-player should acknowledge that they are (probably) playing someone who's career is devoted to life and death struggles. As such, they would have excellent motivation (i.e. their life is at stake) to research and rehearse optimal tactics for survival. Having had a career like that in real life, I have to view those frivolous, actor types (that consider themselves the only true 'role'-players) as not knowing their role at all. It wouldn't take much pattern-recognition abilities to notice that you could safely move around a creature after your party’s tank moved in as cover/distraction. Weird stuff works in D&D that wouldn't work in our own world, but using that knowledge isn't necessarily meta-gaming. But even if it is... often that is the intent of D&D (i.e. it is a very gamist system). Now the bag of rats trick... that would be bad meta-gaming (but most DM's wouldn't allow it anyway).
Kintara 04-19-07, 03:38 PM	Yeah, Shadowhowler, I'm just not seeing your logic there. Feel free to try to explain how that's metagaming. Really, though, I don't see the OoC knowledge there. The rules work a certain way that can be demonstrated by the characters. That may not match your vision of the way reality works, but it does match the way their reality works. "Metagaming" charges should be reserved for players using, say, the knowledge of the stats of a monster from the Monster Manual to kill a monster the characters don't have any knowledge of. The combat rules, however, do not need to be taught to the characters any more than they need to be taught what happens when they let go of a mug of ale and see it fall to the ground. Hey, would you make the case that the characters don't know what actions provoke AoOs? Of course not. And conversely, they also know when one has been provoked, and certainly when one has been used, and furthermore that it's gonna take a sec before they need to worry about another one (usually...). The only problem I see is if you don't let your monsters have a similar insight. Incorporate that tactic into your enemies' repertoires. Give some enemies Combat Reflexes to scare your players from their complacency. This is how you make combat fun in D&D.
mvincent 04-19-07, 04:08 PM	The only problem I see is if you don't let your monsters have a similar insight. Agreed. I'm pretty ok if a DM used "purposefully provoke an AoO" trick on me (which he's done). That's just good tactics. Note though (off-topic): I hate it when you state a readied action and the DM has an opponent react with knowledge of what you are readied for.
Shadowhowler 04-19-07, 10:21 PM	(Sigh) So if you guys are sitting around the gaming table... and one of the players goes 'Hey bob, your character has the best ac and hp in the group... why don't you move past the land sharke and draw it's AoO, that way Mike can move behind it safely and get his flank and sneak attack without it smacking him?' you don't consider that metagaming? Cuz I sure do. If you don't, then there really is no amount of conversation between us that would be productive... becuase, imo I'd say you guys prefer wargaming to roleplaying, and you would tell me that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, and we would get nowhere. :) So I guess this will be one of those 'agree to disagree' deals.
Nom 04-19-07, 11:11 PM	"and one of the characters goes 'Hey bob, you're tough and hard to hit - can you try to get that land shark to take a swipe at you while I quickly move 'round and flank it'?"
Shadowhowler 04-19-07, 11:30 PM	"and one of the characters goes 'Hey bob, you're tough and hard to hit - can you try to get that land shark to take a swipe at you while I quickly move 'round and flank it'?" See... that small difference... the *IN CHARACTER* stratagy, make all the differance to me. If the character whispers to his buddie in game 'Pzt, quick, I'm gonna move up behind it... see if you cant draw it's attention for me eh?' and the other chracater says 'Hell yeah I'll draw it's attention... watch...' and the charges the thing, or circles it, or whatever... while the rogue character then sneaks up around it... that would be great. However, thats not what I see in games... I see out of character player to player stratagy being disscussed, often in situations where the characters do not have TIME to in character discuss stratagy, due to the cirmstances of the combat going on around them... but that does not stop the players from going ahead and doing it. Simple diffrences? Sure. However, to me, they are important differances... and one constatutes good roleplaying, the other, meta gaming.
Kintara 04-19-07, 11:32 PM	(Sigh) So if you guys are sitting around the gaming table... and one of the players goes 'Hey bob, your character has the best ac and hp in the group... why don't you move past the land sharke and draw it's AoO, that way Mike can move behind it safely and get his flank and sneak attack without it smacking him?' you don't consider that metagaming? Cuz I sure do. If you don't, then there really is no amount of conversation between us that would be productive... becuase, imo I'd say you guys prefer wargaming to roleplaying, and you would tell me that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, and we would get nowhere. :) So I guess this will be one of those 'agree to disagree' deals.If you use gaming terms and the players' names of course it will sound like metagaming. "Thog charge the land shark. You're the toughest one. Then you try to get behind him, Salek. Hopefully, the monster will focus on the screaming half-orc charging up to his face, and you can slip in back and do what you do best." Honestly, I want to understand what you consider metagaming. I mean you do let the barbarian PC tank right? And you don't think the player of the Barbarian isn't using his assumptions about how many HP he has to make tactical decisions about what he's going to do? Of course he does, and I don't consider that metagaming. That Barbarian has more HP because it represents how tough he is. And the same goes for the AoO system. The AoO system models how characters may take advantage of defensive openings from movement and distractions in enemies. It's not just a game concept, but something that's real and demonstrable in the world of the characters. The rules are a model for the reality of the game world. It's not metagaming for the players to know what their characters are capable of. Why is it metagaming for them to know how AoOs affect tactics? What's the fundamental difference? There's might be a line here, but I don't see it. Edit: Okay, I read the above post. I think you're being naive if you think that players that use in character tactical discussions aren't using knowledge of the way the game works as they work out the strategy. And that's fine because their characters should have knowledge of how things work for them. Honestly, if your only point was that players should endeavor to speak in character, then I don't have an objection. That's different from my understanding of "metagaming." "Metagaming," in my usage, means that the players are using knowledge that they know as a player, but their characters don't know. Out of character table talk is different from metagaming, for me. You can talk in game lingo, but still scrupulously separate what you know as a player from what your character knows. And vice versa (i.e., use in character discussion, but act on knowledge you couldn't have and just attribute it to, say, "luck.").
keith187 04-19-07, 11:39 PM	To all the realism nuts I just have one thing to say 'Dragons' Whenever we have a thing come up that doesn't make sense someone usually just says that and then we just accept it. It's a fantasy game if you want realism then you've basicly cut out 90% of the game or are going to have more house rules then you can shake a stick at.
Kintara 04-19-07, 11:48 PM	To all the realism nuts I just have one thing to say 'Dragons' Whenever we have a thing come up that doesn't make sense someone usually just says that and then we just accept it. It's a fantasy game if you want realism then you've basicly cut out 90% of the game or are going to have more house rules then you can shake a stick at.To be fair, there is more than one kind of realism. There is "realism" in the sense of being like the real world, and there is "realism" in the sense of internal consistency. Even if you're playing in a world with different rules (like those that allow for dragons and magic), it doesn't mean that you should ignore all logic. It just means that the rules are different. I don't have a problem with people that want to make their games internally consistent. If you don't care about that, then everything starts to lose cohesion and meaning.
mvincent 04-20-07, 12:24 AM	So if you guys are sitting around the gaming table... and one of the players goes 'Hey bob, your character has the best ac and hp in the group... why don't you move past the land sharke and draw it's AoO, that way Mike can move behind it safely and get his flank and sneak attack without it smacking him?' you don't consider that metagaming?Whatever it is, it is a big part of D&D. The game is all about tactics. I agree that in 'real life' they wouldn't be talking about game mechanics and crunching numbers. However, my years as a soldier and a police officer tells me that 'in real life' professional adventurers would indeed constantly talk tactics, and look for any edge they could. While the mechanics let us simulate that only so much, think of that table-talk as equating to the nearest equivalent in their world (and it is something those PC's would darn well do if they wanted to last long). Game-terminology is simply the medium that D&D gives us As an example: I just finished writing a 3-page document detailing the preparation plan for my 15th level party to take down a Pit-fiend. I did my best to keep it in character, but you might well view it as pure meta-gaming (because it makes careful and optimal use of each character, based on the pit-fiends strengths and weaknesses), despite the fact that rehearsals play an important part in my timeline (very important in real life, but gives no benefit in D&D). Any reasonable character would certainly make such efforts in 'real life', because his life is on the line. And if you know anything about Pit-fiends... well, believe me brother: they make the Tarrasque look like Barney the dinosaur. They're not the easy to take down now like they were in the old days.
Shadowhowler 04-21-07, 02:48 AM	If you use gaming terms and the players' names of course it will sound like metagaming. "Thog charge the land shark. You're the toughest one. Then you try to get behind him, Salek. Hopefully, the monster will focus on the screaming half-orc charging up to his face, and you can slip in back and do what you do best." Honestly, I want to understand what you consider metagaming. I mean you do let the barbarian PC tank right? And you don't think the player of the Barbarian isn't using his assumptions about how many HP he has to make tactical decisions about what he's going to do? Of course he does, and I don't consider that metagaming. That Barbarian has more HP because it represents how tough he is. And the same goes for the AoO system. The AoO system models how characters may take advantage of defensive openings from movement and distractions in enemies. It's not just a game concept, but something that's real and demonstrable in the world of the characters. The rules are a model for the reality of the game world. It's not metagaming for the players to know what their characters are capable of. Why is it metagaming for them to know how AoOs affect tactics? What's the fundamental difference? There's might be a line here, but I don't see it. Edit: Okay, I read the above post. I think you're being naive if you think that players that use in character tactical discussions aren't using knowledge of the way the game works as they work out the strategy. And that's fine because their characters should have knowledge of how things work for them. Honestly, if your only point was that players should endeavor to speak in character, then I don't have an objection. That's different from my understanding of "metagaming." "Metagaming," in my usage, means that the players are using knowledge that they know as a player, but their characters don't know. Out of character table talk is different from metagaming, for me. You can talk in game lingo, but still scrupulously separate what you know as a player from what your character knows. And vice versa (i.e., use in character discussion, but act on knowledge you couldn't have and just attribute it to, say, "luck."). The main point here is when they have the out of character conversation about it in situations where their characters COULDN'T have an in game conversation about it. I'm all for characters planing their fights and tatics... I absolutly think seasoned adventures would do that... when they CAN. I've had a lot of fun when a group of characters are setting around a table in a tavern (Or around the War-Table in one of my favorite old characters Tower, a Darrens Instant Fortress) and spend 2-3 hours of in game time talking stratagy about an impending adventure. However, when the fight is ongoing, or they have been cought unawares and the fight is already on and they are in the middle of combat, where rounds are 6 seconds.... there characters dont have a lot of time for talk about stratagy... but the PLAYERS have plenty of time, becuase 6 seconds in the game world may be 10 minutes or more in the real world. So they all start talking stratagy, OUT OF CHARACTER, and then put said stratagy to use in the game. That is the difference to me that makes it metagaming. Again, this is my opinion. I have come to see that the kinda game I like to play and run is becoming less and less the Norm in the new RPG cummunity and in 3.5 as well, and I acept this. So I doubt my opinions on matters like this will ever carry much weight on these forums. I'm sure it won't take long for me to become frustrated enough that I'll just stop posting... so don't worry, you won't have to deal with me for too long. :)
Shadowhowler 04-21-07, 02:51 AM	Whatever it is, it is a big part of D&D. The game is all about tactics. I agree that in 'real life' they wouldn't be talking about game mechanics and crunching numbers. However, my years as a soldier and a police officer tells me that 'in real life' professional adventurers would indeed constantly talk tactics, and look for any edge they could. While the mechanics let us simulate that only so much, think of that table-talk as equating to the nearest equivalent in their world (and it is something those PC's would darn well do if they wanted to last long). Game-terminology is simply the medium that D&D gives us As an example: I just finished writing a 3-page document detailing the preparation plan for my 15th level party to take down a Pit-fiend. I did my best to keep it in character, but you might well view it as pure meta-gaming (because it makes careful and optimal use of each character, based on the pit-fiends strengths and weaknesses), despite the fact that rehearsals play an important part in my timeline (very important in real life, but gives no benefit in D&D). Any reasonable character would certainly make such efforts in 'real life', because his life is on the line. And if you know anything about Pit-fiends... well, believe me brother: they make the Tarrasque look like Barney the dinosaur. They're not the easy to take down now like they were in the old days. See my above post, I agree with you 100% about seasond adventurers discussing tactics, I also state when it crosses the line into metagaming, in my opinion. As for the game being about tactics, that is not always the case. Differant people play for differant reasons. Unitll recently, the people I played with on a regular basis where MUCH more intrested in roleplaying and character development then war gaming and tactics. I know players like this still exist, becuase I see a occasional post from someone of a like mind as myself, but I accept that players like this have become, in the new D&D, the minority. :( I are cold, and wet, and sad.
Kintara 04-21-07, 03:07 AM	The main point here is when they have the out of character conversation about it in situations where their characters COULDN'T have an in game conversation about it.Okay, but the two examples so far are, one, at the start of a battle while fighting a land shark, and in the middle of a battle where a land shark takes his AoO at a passing character. In the first instance, the PCs could have time to discuss tactics IC. In the second instance, the characters can see the land shark taking his pot shot, and so I don't think it's unreasonable for the characters to chug a potion or move after witnessing that. I mean I'll admit that I'm not bothered by most tactical discussions while the battle is going on (though I'm not above forcing decisions to keep things moving), but the reason I don't mind is that I don't expect the players to have as strong a grasp on tactics and have as razor sharp instincts as their characters would be expected to have. I consider that a little bit of tactical discussion once the combat is started the equivalent of the characters having some knowledge and tactics that they are putting to use. It's just a matter of making sure it doesn't get out of hand. Besides, I don't want to make the players so cautious about tactical planning that they over-discuss everything. But I agree that where you draw the line here is a judgment call. :) Edit: You don't need to apologize or explain how you're "in the minority" when you say that you aren't as concerned about the tactical play. I'm down with that. No worries. :)
mvincent 04-21-07, 01:22 PM	PLAYERS have plenty of time, becuase 6 seconds in the game world may be 10 minutes or more in the real world. So they all start talking stratagy, OUT OF CHARACTER, and then put said stratagy to use in the game.Just as the players could not accurately portray the years of experience, planning and tactical knowledge of their characters, we can also not accurately reflect the speed at which decisions have to be made on the battlefield. So I just figure that the two cancel each other out. It's not perfect, but it's a better reflection given the medium. Mind you: I make less allowances if an experienced player is trying to portray an inexperienced adventurer (i.e. I'll make him lose a turn if he tries to over-think the situation), and I'll make more allowances for an inexperienced player is trying to portray an experienced adventurer (i.e. I'll allow them to act on tips from the entire group, and even mention optimal tactics). the people I played with on a regular basis where MUCH more intrested in roleplaying and character development then war gaming and tacticsSure, there's plenty of people like that, and I'm glad they have found which aspect they enjoy most. A couple notes though: 1) D&D is the most gamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory#Gamist) system I have found. Sure, you can use it for Narrativist play (even though there are system much more oriented for this), but it shouldn't be surprising when you encounter gamist D&D players. 2) Some of those roleplaying types can become elitist when describing their style of play (believing themselves more mature by immersing themselves in the role). However, that attitude is not only unwarranted, but it is often incorrect. Assuming they are playing a combat oriented PC, they would be taking tactics, training, discipline, etc. much more seriously. Personally, my PC’s take it pretty hard if a (completely nameless) NPC ally dies due to a sub-optimal tactic on my part. I honestly don't think any of these 'roleplayers' have any idea what putting your life on the line is like, and are not accurately immersing themselves in the role at all.
Shadowhowler 04-21-07, 06:02 PM	1) D&D is the most gamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory#Gamist) system I have found. Sure, you can use it for Narrativist play (even though there are system much more oriented for this), but it shouldn't be surprising when you encounter gamist D&D players. 2) Some of those roleplaying types can become elitist when describing their style of play (believing themselves more mature by immersing themselves in the role). However, that attitude is not only unwarranted, but it is often incorrect. Assuming they are playing a combat oriented PC, they would be taking tactics, training, discipline, etc. much more seriously. Personally, my PC’s take it pretty hard if a (completely nameless) NPC ally dies due to a sub-optimal tactic on my part. I honestly don't think any of these 'roleplayers' have any idea what putting your life on the line is like, and are not accurately immersing themselves in the role at all. 1. Oh, I agree completely. This is also MUCH more so in 3.0 and 3.5, and made even more prevelent with the advent of MMO's (Which, when they first poped up, I thought they would be an intresting way to basicly 'game' with friends of mine who had moved across the country. I thought they would be computerized version of roleplaying games... boy was I wrong. Even the RolePlay dedicated servers are most Wargaming) a lot more D&D players got their start on Everquest or WoW and take that same stratagy based Wargame aproch to D&D. 2. I am a firm beliver in people should play the game the way they want, and a DM should make sure he gets a group of people who want to play the same kinda game that he/she wants to run together. I belive when you get a group of mixed Wargamers and Roleplayers, your probably going to run into conflicts down the road as to game style, and best to avoid those beforehand. The revers of what you say is equaly true, you know. Lots of Optimizers and wargamers become ellitest about they way THEY play the game, beliving THEY are the ones playing the 'right' kind of D&D. These have no more and no less idea then the roleplayers what it is to actualy put their lives on the line at all. However, as far as imersion goes, must roleplayers tend to care more about the lives of their characters... if that character lives or dies, then most wargamers I know. Thus they don't just attack everything and roll up another character if it does not work out... they treat their characters as living breathing people who care weither they live or die. There is no right way or wrong way to play a game... what you do with your friends and how you do it is your buisness. On these forums, 99% of what goes back an forth is opinion, and completely subjective. However, when you try to point out the fualts of one style of gaming while trying to ignore the fualts of another, nothing is servered except your own vanity... and that does little good. :( At any rate, my original post was about what I thought, and what most players I have played with would have thought, was metagaming. I have quickly learned that most of the players reading this thread disagree, and I have also quickly learned that those players play a diffrent style of D&D then I and the guys I play with do... and thts totaly fine. However, we would not likly see eye to on on a spicific example if we don't see eye to eye on the general style and methods with which to judge that specific example, so my intrest in that example has ended. :)
Kintara 04-22-07, 01:57 AM	At any rate, my original post was about what I thought, and what most players I have played with would have thought, was metagaming. I have quickly learned that most of the players reading this thread disagree, and I have also quickly learned that those players play a diffrent style of D&D then I and the guys I play with do... and thts totaly fine. However, we would not likly see eye to on on a spicific example if we don't see eye to eye on the general style and methods with which to judge that specific example, so my intrest in that example has ended. :)Okay, but remember that you replied to me about what I said, and I don't think we've really cleared up what you thought was wrong with what I said. Read my original post that you replied to, but assume that I completely agree that the players shouldn't discuss tactics unrealistically, either by using game lingo or by discussing more than they could given the circumstances. I mean how much discussion, or even analysis, really needs to take place for a character to notice that the land shark "opportunistically attacked" a passing archer, and, therefore, he has a moment to chug a potion safely? And, conversely, how much OoC knowledge is needed to know that if you distract a monster by tempting him to attack you, and he takes it, that that might give your allies a moment to do something they otherwise might not be able to get away with? Edit: Look at this from my perspective. You're the one that said that what I said was "******** metagaming." That piqued my interest, and I honestly want to know why. We had a useful discussion about in and out of character dialog, but I don't see how that completely explains how what I said was "******** metagaming." It makes me think that you think I'm saying something I'm not, and so maybe we don't disagree as much as you think we do.
Shadowhowler 04-22-07, 03:29 AM	Okay, but remember that you replied to me about what I said, and I don't think we've really cleared up what you thought was wrong with what I said. Read my original post that you replied to, but assume that I completely agree that the players shouldn't discuss tactics unrealistically, either by using game lingo or by discussing more than they could given the circumstances. I mean how much discussion, or even analysis, really needs to take place for a character to notice that the land shark "opportunistically attacked" a passing archer, and, therefore, he has a moment to chug a potion safely? And, conversely, how much OoC knowledge is needed to know that if you distract a monster by tempting him to attack you, and he takes it, that that might give your allies a moment to do something they otherwise might not be able to get away with? Edit: Look at this from my perspective. You're the one that said that what I said was "******** metagaming." That piqued my interest, and I honestly want to know why. We had a useful discussion about in and out of character dialog, but I don't see how that completely explains how what I said was "******** metagaming." It makes me think that you think I'm saying something I'm not, and so maybe we don't disagree as much as you think we do. The erorr was mine, in assuming that we would be coming from the same school of thought on how to play the game. See, I've been a bit spoiled in that, untill recently, I have had a core group of players to play with for over 15 years. Some new players have come and gone, but the core of the group I have gamed with has remianed the same... and we all shared similar opinions on how to game, the importance of roleplay, and what is and is not metagaming. In one of the above examples... the character in melee range see's the creature take a swipe at the passing archer and figures 'Oh, now I'm safe to chug a potion' but, is he really? Sometimes creatures/charactaers can take more then one AoO, sometimes they can't. Is the player using character knowledge to guess wiehter the creature he is facing is one that can not, or player knowledge? Also, my biggest gripe comes from PLAYERS talking stratagy in situations where their CHARACTERS could not or do not. When your characters are all over the battlefield, each one deep within combat with differant creatures/characters, and they only have 6 seconds... thats not a lot of time to 'shop talk' about what tatics to use in the moment... yet recently I have seen players go on for over 5 minutes about tactics in the middle of a combat OUT of character, I dislike this, I think it's metagaming. Also, often, if one player announces his characters actions "I'm going to move over here and then cast spell X" I see another player, Agaian OUT of character, say something along the lines of "No dude, you need to move over HERE and attack, you spell most likely wont do much damagae, but if you move here you will flank and bob will get the +2" and the other player goes "Oh yeah, your right..." and changes his actions. Agaian, Major metagaming IMO. I play and run an imersive roleplay style... always have, always will. If I wanna play a wargame I'll log onto WoW or Everquest... for me, RPGs are still about, well, what the title says... Role Playing Games. At any rate, the initial error was mine, becuase I was putting MY standered of how to play the game on your exmaples, and that was wrong of me. As I am quickly learning... lots and lots of people don't like D&D for the same reasons I and my friends do... they like it for COMPLETELY differant things... and thats going to take some getting used to for me... Sorry if I offended you, not my intent. :(
mvincent 04-22-07, 02:24 PM	when you try to point out the fualts of one style of gaming while trying to ignore the fualts of another, nothing is servered except your own vanityAgreed (indeed, that was my point).
mvincent 04-22-07, 02:40 PM	my biggest gripe comes from PLAYERS talking stratagy in situations where their CHARACTERS could not or do not. That is certainly reasonable. What did you feel about my solution presented earlier? i.e. Such table talk could be indicative of the practice, rehearsals, and experience the team had well before the battle... where tactics and discussions could have been ironed out. Surely, a crack adventuring team would be more in sync than a group of hobbyists that meet maybe twice a month? Additionally, using game-mechanic terms should be allowed a bit, since that is the medium by which we know the D&D world. We can't expect to talk exactly like our characters anyway (they probably don't even speak english). PC's have greater access to a whole host of different cues: not numbers and 5' grids... but sights, smells, sounds, tempo, etc. which we can't really completely simulate. Some flexibility in adjusting for this is to be expected.
Shadowhowler 04-22-07, 05:58 PM	That is certainly reasonable. What did you feel about my solution presented earlier? i.e. Such table talk could be indicative of the practice, rehearsals, and experience the team had well before the battle... where tactics and discussions could have been ironed out. Surely, a crack adventuring team would be more in sync than a group of hobbyists that meet maybe twice a month? It's a very viable argument on the side of explaining why you might wanna allow some 'out of character' tactics to be discussed, however, I'd take it on a case by case basis, since there are so many varriables. 1. If the group really HAS been together a long time, as in has played together for months/years and seen many combats, the players should be in step with on anothers tactics as the characters are, and there is no need for this additional out of game talk. 2. If they have NOT been together very long... (I see a lot of groups that just 'fall in' together... ya know, the cliched 'we meet up at the local tavern, hear about the reward for ____ and decide to adventure') these types of characters have NOT worked out a system of fighting together, and should not get the additional out of character tactical conversation. 3. Lastly... I suspect it would varry from group to group how something like this was used. Some groups might use it sparingly and well 'Remember, our characters have worked out a scenario for this sorta fight bob, like that time agianst the Hydra, lets stick to the paln.' 'Right Ralph' and others might just use it as a loophole for metagaming 'Ok Bob, make sure you cast the fireball against the back wall so it''s effect does not hit the front squares, becuase Jimmy is going to move in on his init and draw the AoO, so I can move around and follw, and we can flank it, and then Manny can straff it with arrows, now that he got persice shot last level. I'm sure we would have worked this scenario out'. So I'd have to see something like this on a case by case basis to decide if it is meta gaming... :)