Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WayneTheGame 06-18-06, 02:40 AM	I am a powergamer by nature, but lately it's been causing a bit of tension with my gaming group as my ideas and views of how the game should be played clashes with them. So I turn to you, my friends on the boards, to offer input and suggestions on how I can be a better roleplayer. Here are a few of the issues that have come up: 1) I firmly believe that "metagaming" is a lame and worthless concept designed to screw the PCs, force characters to intentionally endanger themselves, and require players to not use tactics in battles. Example: I think it is utterly ridiculous to force my character to fall into a trap and take damage, possibly die (depending on level) because while the DM mentioned that to another player at the table that it happens, but my character was not there so I don't know. Do I see the POINT of this? Sure, but I don't want to throw away a character because of this kind of nonsense. Or, as a worse example, force me to suffer the gaze attack of a creature like a Bodak (i.e. save or die) because "Your character doesn't know what a Bodak is so wouldn't know to look away." To me, this is utter garbage that I have to basically throw away a character I spent many hours on. Worse still is the idea that I cannot give another player advice. Just a few hours ago in my game I got called for metagaming because I suggested to the paladin player that if her henchmen moved out of the way, she could move up and turn some undead attacking us; this launched me into a diatribe against metagaming and drawing the line with what a character would know vs. what the player has a capacity to know (the idea being that if her character had any common sense she would be able to SEE that if the two henchmen moved out of the way to let her advance she could turn. The player, BTW, disagreed completely and agreed that I was metagaming for suggesting it to her). Which brings me to point two... 2) I feel that there are certain things a character should know based on their relevant ability scores. My group, however, feels that if you as a player can't figure it out, then your character can't, regardless of what they would know if they were "real". This to me is complete and utter trash. One person in my group went so far as to say if you can't figure that out then you shouldn't play a character with such a high score. My wizard with a 20 intelligence SHOULD be smart enough to figure certain things out, even if I as a player only have the equivalent to a 12 Intelligence. 3) As I said in my opening, I'm a powergamer. I don't pick useless feats or waste my precious skill points on useless skills. I look at what my character can do, and make him extremely good at it. My primary stats are the ones that I raise. However, again I have members of my group who frown on this. One person felt that having a Strength of 20 at 5th level was "too high". Others argue that you should take skills that fit your character; while I can agree with this I feel you don't have enough skill points to DO that without gimping yourself in areas that are useful in-game. Maybe if D&D had a "Knowledge Skills" area like Shadowrun it would work (where you have x many skill points for "action" skills, i.e. the ones that really require a roll, and y many skill points for "knowledge" skills which represent things your character knows. Fine elven wines or seedy taverns, for example), but with the system as written there aren't nearly enough skill points to "waste" on background skills when the cost is losing out on relevant in-game skills. I'm getting to the point where I'm tired of the arguments and debating with my friends because we can't see eye to eye. I see the relevance of some of their points but I'm totally unable to DO it in practice. When I sit down to create a character, the first thing I think of is something cool that I want to do (e.g. kill things, cast fire spells, etc.) and then build a character around that mechanical concept. I have a very difficult time making a roleplaying concept first and then bringing it to life, because invariably it returns to a mechanical thing in the end. To conclude, let me say what I am looking for in this post: I'm looking for constructive, helpful input and advice (Hey, maybe I should make my own acronym. To heck with PEACH and SHIO, how about CHIA? :D). I don't want the thread to turn into a powergamer vs. roleplayer thread, OR turn into a rant about metagaming, OR saying how I should find another group or how my group sucks. Help me out here; what can I do to make myself a better roleplayer??
Kirtanus_Albacron 06-18-06, 02:51 AM	I say powergame as much as you want. Just come up with an roleplaying reason of why you have the stuff you have. And you may be metagaming, I'm not sure, but if your character SHOULD know it, make a knowledge check to see whether you know it or not. I have a character that is lvl 6 and it has a strength of 20, it is in fact, a Hound Archon, and I am suspecting that it is too powerful, my lowest score with the modifiers is a 14. Take what feats and skills you want, raise what stats you want, and don't gimp yourself because of a stupid reason.
utilitarian 06-18-06, 02:57 AM	Well you've got a difficult time ahead of you sir, let me tell you that. It's pretty clear from your post that you are, as admitted, a hardcore power gamer, and that's your perogitive to be. 1.) In regards to Metagaming (or rather, the lack-thereof) Using the Pit example, a good DM will usually avoid you knowing what actions are potentially fatal by limiting your out of game knowledge, IE, I wouldn't say to a player of mine "man there's totally a pit trap with a gelatnious cube at the bottom (one of my favorites) in this next hallway, you better hope you make your save bucko!" To do this just puts the player in an awkward situation. Now on the issue of other characters knowing things your character doesn't, why aren't they telling your character? If someone in one of my parties makes his spot check to notice the aforemeantioned pit trap with a gelatinous cube, you can bet the first thing he does is shout (in character) "WHOA! IT'S A MFKING PIT TRAP WITH A GELATINOUS CUBE!" and we all stop and thank the dice lords he made his spot check. In regards to not knowing to look away against the Bodak, my personal practice is to use Knowledge skills. Need to know whether that strange demon you just encounted is immune to fire without Metagaming? Just roll a Knowledge: The Planes and with a high enough score you'll learn all kinds of things. While I'm not sure what knowledge skill would apply to Undead I'm sure you can work something out with the DM. And yes, finally, sometimes being a good non-metagamer requires you to make your character do stupid things. Thanks to an abysmal will saving throw I spent 6 rounds last game trying to tell the party paladin that the illusiory broom closet really WAS a broom closet, even after it started throwing fireballs at us. "I'm telling you it's a broom closet, ok admittedly an EXPLODING broom closet, but still a closet none the less! Why did it explode you ask? How should I know? Am I an expect on crazy demonic fortress broom closets? I think not!" 2.) In regards to character ability vs player ability: that's what ability rolls are for. When you play a high Int character, it's obviously impossible for the average person to know everything your int 20 wizard does. So to account for this you use base Int or Knowledge rolls. Say you encounter a mathamatical puzzle in the game, your Int 20 wizard is likely smart enough to figure it out, or at least know more than you, so request (politely) a Base Intellegence Check to at least get a lead on it. And once again I can't stress the importance of Knowledge skills. A high int character ought to have a couple ranks in every knowledge skill he can get his hands on. 3.) I don't really know what to say about this one. If your party thinks that 20 str at level 5 is too high for some reason, I don't know what thier logic is. If you rolled a jolly old 18 for str and happen to be a half orc you might have had that much at level 1. Perhaps once some of the friction from the first two points dies down and they start seeing you get a bit more into the roleplaying they'll stop being so critical of your powergaming. Q.) As some unrelated advice, take a few steps back and plan out your character from a ROLEPLAY perspective. Being a good roleplayer is all about character. Try to get past your character's race class and stats and think about what he's really like. What are his motivations? Why is he an adventurer? How does his perticular outlook on life intermix with his alignment. Just having a couple of roleplay "hooks" for your character can go a long way into making him feel more like a character and less like a race/class combination. *edit* I hope at least some of that was helpful to you.
UltimateReality 06-18-06, 03:09 AM	Just wanted to second Utilitarian's post. It was bang on in every respect I can think of. Your group seems to take the roleplaying thing a bit too far into acting for my tastes. Knowledge skills exist for a reason. Inter-player communication is a good thing. If going at it from the perspective of your character's history/motivations doesn't do it for you, you can always try approaching it by their personality: describe them in three words or less. Honestly, the thing that helped me the most? Character portraits! Great for inspiring character ideas, great for getting myself into the mindset of the character, and great as a visual handicap to get my character's "feel" across to the other players. Google Image Search or even, amazingly, the NWN Vaults can turn up some randomly useful stuff.
Evingolis 06-18-06, 03:14 AM	1) if you cant stand that your char dies, dont play dnd. danger and death are part of the game. accept it or leave 1b) metagaming is lame~ 2) you are basically right (and few DM will expect their players to be able to crush a door if their pc has strength 20). anyway, when theres a riddle (or information you CAN gather), dont expect that the dm will easily roll dice in any case, especially not before you did try to solve the riddle by using your natural intelligence 3) powergaming is ok. its always nice to have a background reason for the choice of skills/feats, but if not, its ok too. dnd is not purely roleplaying, its also rollplaying. do you read fantasy? ever read the dragonlance?
stealth_monkey 06-18-06, 03:15 AM	2 and 3 I agree with you. Nothing there is stopping you from roleplaying The metagaming thing, however, is probably why you're not having "fun" roleplaying Note- someone somewhere on this thread is going to quote the "stormwind" fallacy, I'll point out in advance that it's irrelevent in this context and also state that inductive logic is technically a logical fallacy, but me saying the sun will come up tomorrow is generally a damn strong argument, just because it isn't valid doesn't mean it isn't true. So with that out of the way, can you at least see why other people believe metagaming is bad? The "i know it's a bodak, so I look away" kind of thing is best handled in game by your knowledge skills. If you have zero knowledge on religion, and thus undead, you're damn right that your character isn't going to know a bodak from a strawberry muffin. Meta-gaming is in essence taking the strengths of your character, and then bumping up his knowledge skills to the point where he can't fail. Do you see how this could be considered simply giving your character free skill points? and thus cheating? Yes, metagaming might save your character from death and means you won't need to roll up a new character, but then again, so would "accidently" giving yourself another 10 points in swim when you find out the ship you're on is sinking. Now please, if you're all for metagaming, explain to me how the two situations are different? you are in both cases giving yourself extra skill point above that which you earnt (knowledge: religion and swimming respectively). The only difference is you read the monster manual before you got the knowledge skills
MerlintheTuna 06-18-06, 03:21 AM	2) I feel that there are certain things a character should know based on their relevant ability scores. My group, however, feels that if you as a player can't figure it out, then your character can't, regardless of what they would know if they were "real". This to me is complete and utter trash. One person in my group went so far as to say if you can't figure that out then you shouldn't play a character with such a high score. My wizard with a 20 intelligence SHOULD be smart enough to figure certain things out, even if I as a player only have the equivalent to a 12 Intelligence. Take their terrible precedent and reverse it on them. Tell the guy playing the barbarian to move 40 feet in 6 seconds while carrying the you & a couch on his back. Lock the door before the rogue comes in and tell him "Come on, you should be able to pick this one. It's only average." Mental abilities may extend beyond what the player is capable of -- if the DM isn't willing to help out with high wisdom and intelligence from time to time (don't get me started on the CHA-tankers), he's doing a lousy job of maintaining suspension of disbelief and is therefore INHIBITING roleplaying.
Sphyre 06-18-06, 07:42 AM	I spent some time typing this out, in hopes that I wrote at least something that could help you become a better roleplayer, as you asked. Warning... it's long, but it's full of juicy details ;) I am a powergamer by nature, but lately it's been causing a bit of tension with my gaming group as my ideas and views of how the game should be played clashes with them. So I turn to you, my friends on the boards, to offer input and suggestions on how I can be a better roleplayer. Here are a few of the issues that have come up: Powergaming isn't inherently bad. I enjoy powergaming. I don't want to play this game to be a weak and inept person that couldn't do anything without his mommy holding his hand. I want to play this game to be a hero, or otherwise extraordinary person in a fantasy setting. If you remove the mechanics of the game, then you "solve" powergaming. There's nothing wrong with being a powergamer and roleplayer, for they are not mutually exclusive and actually in doing both I enjoy this game more than I would lacking either of the other two parts. 1) I firmly believe that "metagaming" is a lame and worthless concept designed to screw the PCs, force characters to intentionally endanger themselves, and require players to not use tactics in battles. Example: I think it is utterly ridiculous to force my character to fall into a trap and take damage, possibly die (depending on level) because while the DM mentioned that to another player at the table that it happens, but my character was not there so I don't know. Do I see the POINT of this? Sure, but I don't want to throw away a character because of this kind of nonsense. Or, as a worse example, force me to suffer the gaze attack of a creature like a Bodak (i.e. save or die) because "Your character doesn't know what a Bodak is so wouldn't know to look away." To me, this is utter garbage that I have to basically throw away a character I spent many hours on. Worse still is the idea that I cannot give another player advice. Just a few hours ago in my game I got called for metagaming because I suggested to the paladin player that if her henchmen moved out of the way, she could move up and turn some undead attacking us; this launched me into a diatribe against metagaming and drawing the line with what a character would know vs. what the player has a capacity to know (the idea being that if her character had any common sense she would be able to SEE that if the two henchmen moved out of the way to let her advance she could turn. The player, BTW, disagreed completely and agreed that I was metagaming for suggesting it to her). Which brings me to point two... It seems to me that both you and your group have extremist points of veiw on what metagaming is. Simply put, metagaming is specifically altering your character's actions due to the result of a die roll (or requesting of a die roll), what the DM has told specifically to another player, or using other out of game knowledge that doesn't make sense that your character would know. This means, that if you start searching a room, because your DM asked you to make a spot check, that's metagaming. You don't know that there's someone hiding in the room, and that was the check to see if your character spotted it, and because you failed you don't know. If you didn't see something, how can you know you didn't see it? It doesn't make sense! Why should you even be entiled to a spot check if you automatically know someone's there then due to metagaming? This is why you have points in spot. It is both mechanically and role-playingly sound that you should not metagame in this way. You wouldn't like it if you were playing a rogue, and everyone always knew you were around, because they failed their spot checks and then started taking 20s on search checks for you. As a DM, this can be circumvented by making your spot checks for you in secret. This means, that if someone made a knowledge check, or was told something that was specific to that character, you do not know it and act as if you didn't know it. It doesn't mean you can't be wary in a dungeon full of traps, because someone else found it and didn't tell you... but it does mean that you DON'T have a telepathic link with your allies. What point would Rary's Telepathic Bond and all other such spells that mimic this have if you could do this? You wouldn't like it if you were going in a castle or dungeon of some sort, and a level 1 commoner is at the beginning of the dungeon, and sees you and now everything in the castle or dungeon comes around and specifically attacks you all at once leaving you at no chance of survival. It doesn't make sense, and if you metagame, then the DM metagames... and then everyone dies because every enemy in the world converges on you at one point because they know at one point you will try to kill them, so they better get you while you're squishy and low level, and have about 150 other monsters on you. As a DM, this can be circumvented by taking that player off on the side for those situations. Finally, the point that causes the most controversy is the situation of the bodak. Obviously if your character doesn't know what a bodak is, he wouldn't know to look away. The knowledge(Religion) Skill reveals this information about it. From a mechanical and roleplaying point of veiw it makes sense to not metagame what you know about a bodak simply because you see one. From the aspect of "throwing your character away," you're not quite doing that. Part of the bodak's challenge is that you don't know to look away. by metagaming, you're reducing it's effectiveness, and should be facing it at a lower level. You make your first save and then look away While you may have spent a few hours, or several hours on making your character, the DM spends countless more hours making monsters for you to kill. Is it fair for him to have to spend twice as long to make monsters that you don't know? Not only are you making the Knowledge skills useless by metagaming from the mechanic perspective, from the role playing perspective, you're removing realism, in that you're saying your character in born with innate knowledge of every single stat about every monster and exactly how to kill it on sight. As a DM this can be circumvented by one of several ways: Make your own monsters, advance monsters, give creatures alternate descriptions and physiologies, along with different names. A bodak now looks like a dark monkey with hair all over and is named a Shreiker - now you can't metagame that you should look away because you don't know what it is on sight/description simply because you read the MM. It seems to me after reading that the problem is that you want to play purely a tactical wargame by using the game mechanics without realism and your players want to use realism. Now I can't tell whether they also want to play the tactical part of the game too by your post, it's posssible to do both, because I actually enjoy doing both. It's almost like you want to play this kind of like warhammer, or some other tactical "videogame-esque" style as opposed to a role-playing fantasy game. To "become a better roleplayer" you would need to see the value in playing the role-playing fantasy game in addition to the tactical combat, and combine the two to create a fun gaming experience. Role playing can be quite fun, along with the tactical game. The part about your suggestion to the paladin has little to do with metagaming, and rather, the fact that the the player wasn't playing his character IN CHARACTER, where he would have been smart enough to know that situation. 2) I feel that there are certain things a character should know based on their relevant ability scores. My group, however, feels that if you as a player can't figure it out, then your character can't, regardless of what they would know if they were "real". This to me is complete and utter trash. One person in my group went so far as to say if you can't figure that out then you shouldn't play a character with such a high score. My wizard with a 20 intelligence SHOULD be smart enough to figure certain things out, even if I as a player only have the equivalent to a 12 Intelligence. I agree with you on this. Your players are being picky about what they call "roleplaying" and "realism." If you have a 20 int, your character probably would know more than what you with a 12 int would know. I once made a post (which is actually the treatise on metapsionic feats in my sig) that said I was playing a 29 int telepath. Let me quote... This optimization was inspired by my level 12 Elan Psion Telepath, who due to a +6 headband of intellect and old age had 29 int. Not only was I optimizing him, but this was also in character. A character with 29 int is in the range of deific intelligence. This character was going to know how to sqeeze every last point of effectiveness from his personal power. To illustrate my point I will quote myself from an earlier thread with Blainetog; "29 int... how do you roleplay that? well for one, you optimize your metapsionic feats so that you squeeze every last damage out of your power points." Use your knowledge of the mechanics as a tool to help you role-play that, but always put it in terms of how it would be in game. "I know a wizard could cast only 10 "normal" spells in a minute's time. In that time, I could attack X Amount of time. You would know the advantages of mechanics, such as prone making it easier to hit in melee, but harder at range. You would know there are bigger fish in the sea than you and probably be more cautious. This doesn't mean you can metagame specific scenarios, such as the scenarios I gave earlier, but I do think that it would grant you the ability to use your overall game knowledge to help you "understand" the universe a bit better in terms of what happens in the game. You might think things such as "that wizard must be at least skilled enough to cast fly, if he could cast fireball" (and that you have points in knowledge arcana) If you ever saw one cast fly, and then fireball, you probably wouldn't forget that if someone can cast one, he might be able to cast the other. It does mean, that you would know that a rogue is the only one who can find magical traps, it does mean that you know what damage reduction is and that you need to find the right type of weapon to bypass it. It does mean that you know if you failed your caster level check due to SR, that it's going to be harder to kill, and that you should use spells that don't allow SR. It does mean that you should play smart if you have a smart character. One way I implement character stats into a game is I often use Intelligence, wisdom, and charisma checks to give players hints, that in a way are metagaming, but their character is smart/wise/charismatic enough to know those things already. I think this is one of the points that your players that you play with need to learn to be compatible with you too. Part of why you're playing the game is the combat and mechanics. It's not the only reason, but it is one. Your players need to understand that you're trying to learn roleplaying in addition to mechanics, while they should learn mechanics in addition to their role playing. 3) As I said in my opening, I'm a powergamer. I don't pick useless feats or waste my precious skill points on useless skills. I look at what my character can do, and make him extremely good at it. My primary stats are the ones that I raise. However, again I have members of my group who frown on this. One person felt that having a Strength of 20 at 5th level was "too high". Others argue that you should take skills that fit your character; while I can agree with this I feel you don't have enough skill points to DO that without gimping yourself in areas that are useful in-game. Maybe if D&D had a "Knowledge Skills" area like Shadowrun it would work (where you have x many skill points for "action" skills, i.e. the ones that really require a roll, and y many skill points for "knowledge" skills which represent things your character knows. Fine elven wines or seedy taverns, for example), but with the system as written there aren't nearly enough skill points to "waste" on background skills when the cost is losing out on relevant in-game skills. I agree with you again here. You shouldn't gimp yourself if you're trying to fill a role. And I think it's a sin to spend too much of your mechanical resources to reinforce your background at the cost of too much effectiveness. Sure you can spend some skill points that make sense, but minimize them. You're playing a role-playing game. This means you're filling a role. If you suck at your role, then you're nerfing everyone else, because you can't play your part effeciently. This is another point that your players need to understand. You are playing the game for tactical challenge. They are playing the game for roleplaying. To acheive a point of harmony, you both need to include each other's play styles into your own. This is a group game, where everyone has to work together to have fun. Both are not mutually exclusive, and actually I find the mix to be so rewarding that I can't see myself getting sick of it, because of all the different dynamics that it allows by BOTH roleplaying and having Tactically challlenging combat. I'm getting to the point where I'm tired of the arguments and debating with my friends because we can't see eye to eye. I see the relevance of some of their points but I'm totally unable to DO it in practice. When I sit down to create a character, the first thing I think of is something cool that I want to do (e.g. kill things, cast fire spells, etc.) and then build a character around that mechanical concept. I have a very difficult time making a roleplaying concept first and then bringing it to life, because invariably it returns to a mechanical thing in the end. I agree, it is mechanical in the end, and that's honestly how I make my characters to. I make the mechanics of it. Then throughout the mechanics, I wonder what kind of person would this be? What do I want to play? I spend about as much time making the actual character as I do thinking up his/her background. To help you understand my process, I recently made a Duskblade character from the PHBII. As the PHBII says that it's a class made by elves, and elves are both martial in their racial traits and background, along with having a favored class of wizard, and their knowledge of arcane magic, I decided that even though I was a playing a human, it would be a pretty good background to have him found and raised by elves. His name is "Rennyth" which according to Races of the Wild, means "Person of the west" in elvish. It was the name given to him by the elves because he was found abandoned, west of the elven city that found him. Also, I decided that I wanted to play a good character, but rather roguish in his demeanor, so he was CG. It just fell in to place that he would follow well in the ways of Corelon Larethian, the god of elves. From that, he grew up quickly, excelled in both martial skill trained by elves, and arcane magic by the elven wizards of the city. The DM is running a campaign that he bought, and it fit pretty well with the setting too. He also had a "role playing effect" or something where he asked me to roll randomly and if i wanted I could have this "role playing idea" called scarred soul. "Perhaps you were orphaned as a child or something, but whatever the case has left you jumpy and quick to scare. As a result you gain +2 initiatives and -1 to will saves" It fit even more with my character, and I just kept adding more and more to the background. My favorite though, was this background: Talandre (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9231544&postcount=16) To conclude, let me say what I am looking for in this post: I'm looking for constructive, helpful input and advice (Hey, maybe I should make my own acronym. To heck with PEACH and SHIO, how about CHIA? ). I don't want the thread to turn into a powergamer vs. roleplayer thread, OR turn into a rant about metagaming, OR saying how I should find another group or how my group sucks. Help me out here; what can I do to make myself a better roleplayer?? Ch ch ch ch chia! :P I think that it's going to take some effort on your group too, to come to an understanding. But what I can suggest to help improve on roleplaying is this: Focus on roleplaying. Put as much, if not more effort into thinking about the roleplaying of your character. You don't have to nerf your character at all to do this. Just think of who you'd want to play, why that person is that way, how do they react, and such. I actually find it enjoyable to play unintelligent, unwise and uncharismatic characters at times, because it's a new twist on roleplaying. I like doing things that I know I shouldn't at times. If it costs me my character I could get raised or try out a new character, but it makes the character memorable. And good memories are what I like to take from this game. Yeah it's neat to have a guy that can kick some butt, but what's more memorable is when you have someone that you liked playing that kicked butt. If you're anything like me in terms of making your characters, you have tons of ideas of characters that you could play, so if you do die by that bodak, and you don't have the means to res, you can reroll another character concept that you wanted to try out. In addition to playing with the mechanics, also play with the personality... I hope at least some part in this gave you insight to help you acheive a better play experience.
WayneTheGame 06-18-06, 09:05 AM	First I'd like to thank everyone for the constructive replies. I appreciate it. Let me add and comment on some of the thoughts put forward: On Metagaming: I understand perfectly where my group is coming from; the problem is that I form a personal attachment to my characters. While I don't mind risking my life in situations that I'm aware of (e.g. combat, delving into ancient dungeons with loads of traps, etc.), I still have an issue in situations where I (i.e. the player) know my character's going to suffer some horrible fate and can't do anything to stop it because the character doesn't know what's going on. I would have to waste skill points on all of the knowledge skills just so I'd have *some* chance of knowing about this creature or that; if I'm playing a fighter with an average Intelligence I just don't have enough points to do that, and my character has to suffer for it. But don't get me wrong, I understand where they're coming from. The paladin issue was more relevant to the second point... I don't see how it's metagaming to offer OOC advice to another player and point something out that they're overlooking. I strongly believe the character should never be penalized for something the player can't figure out; the character has skills that the player doesn't. Another thing with my group is we tend not to yell things out to other characters, the idea being that if we YELL "Hey, go up there and turn those skeletons!" then the bad guy knows what we're doing and can prepare a counter for it; we've just telegraphed what we plan to do while the DM hasn't telegraphed anything. In other words, it puts us at a disadvantage for no reason. On Character Knowledge vs. Player Knowledge: As I said, roughly half of my group feels that it doesn't matter what your character's skills are (mental skills, physical skill don't apply evidently), if you can't figure the thing out or make a last-minute silly decision your character would never do, then you're stuck. One player's rationale is that if you have a high CHA character, for example, you need to be able to roleplay it or your character doesn't have a high CHA score (they still have the modifier, but I mean if you do a lousy job roleplaying out a diplomatic encounter with your 18 Charisma rogue, you aren't going to persuade him). Her example (this is the Paladin player) is that she's shy in real life but she's playing a paladin so she's being more brash than usual because her character has a high charisma. I see nothing wrong with that, but I don't think you should be penalized for not being as charismatic as your character. On Other Things: It's not that I want to play a tactical wargame, I just don't ever like to disadvantage myself. I like to plan things out meticulously so I can get all the advantages possible, rather than do something foolish and put myself in harm's way for no reason. I've been trying to work on the metagame issue, but as I said to me there's no point in yelling in character for someone to flank/cast a spell/etc. because the monster you were trying to catch off-guard is now aware of it and will always move away or ready an action to disrupt the spell or whatever. Again, thanks everyone for the insightful replies. And yes, I hope that nobody brings up that Stormwind Fallacy thing; it has absolutely no bearing on this thread whatsoever. This isn't an argument about powergaming vs. roleplaying.
Evil DM Mk3 06-18-06, 09:48 AM	you're damn right that your character isn't going to know a bodak from a strawberry muffin. I dunno, I think even my non-gaming sister would be able to look at a Bodak and answer the question "Is this a strawberry muffin?" and get it right 100% of the time. First I'd like to thank everyone for the constructive replies. I appreciate it. Let me add and comment on some of the thoughts put forward: On Metagaming: I understand perfectly where my group is coming from; the problem is that I form a personal attachment to my characters. While I don't mind risking my life in situations that I'm aware of (e.g. combat, delving into ancient dungeons with loads of traps, etc.), I still have an issue in situations where I (i.e. the player) know my character's going to suffer some horrible fate and can't do anything to stop it because the character doesn't know what's going on. I would have to waste skill points on all of the knowledge skills just so I'd have *some* chance of knowing about this creature or that; if I'm playing a fighter with an average Intelligence I just don't have enough points to do that, and my character has to suffer for it. But don't get me wrong, I understand where they're coming from.No PC an island is. If the cleric is being roleplayed well then he will have much knowladge relgion and shout, upon seing the Bodak, "DON'T LOOK IT IN THE EYES!!! FOR THE LOVE OF PELOR AVOID THE EYES!!!!!". If the rest of the party are refusing to role play, point out that that is almost (ALMOST) as bad as you meta-gaming. The paladin issue was more relevant to the second point... I don't see how it's metagaming to offer OOC advice to another player and point something out that they're overlooking. I strongly believe the character should never be penalized for something the player can't figure out; the character has skills that the player doesn't. Another thing with my group is we tend not to yell things out to other characters, the idea being that if we YELL "Hey, go up there and turn those skeletons!" then the bad guy knows what we're doing and can prepare a counter for it; we've just telegraphed what we plan to do while the DM hasn't telegraphed anything. In other words, it puts us at a disadvantage for no reason.More or less of a dissadvantage than if the party is working at about 30% power due to dumb players? If you know he can turn undead in game (ie you have seen him do it) then NOT yelling is the dumb way to go. After all turning undead is pretty basic and only takes the round it is decided in to do. On Character Knowledge vs. Player Knowledge: As I said, roughly half of my group feels that it doesn't matter what your character's skills are (mental skills, physical skill don't apply evidently), if you can't figure the thing out or make a last-minute silly decision your character would never do, then you're stuck. One player's rationale is that if you have a high CHA character, for example, you need to be able to roleplay it or your character doesn't have a high CHA score (they still have the modifier, but I mean if you do a lousy job roleplaying out a diplomatic encounter with your 18 Charisma rogue, you aren't going to persuade him). Her example (this is the Paladin player) is that she's shy in real life but she's playing a paladin so she's being more brash than usual because her character has a high charisma. I see nothing wrong with that, but I don't think you should be penalized for not being as charismatic as your character.What annoys me is the fact that the RAW is designed for the very situation that you are screaming for! Let us look at the bluff skill. That is divided up into DC categories (PC CHA skill involved) based on the chosen lie (Player imadgination used). Put simply they are in correct. Whilst I can understand the desire for a DM to want a Player to solve a problem/get a riddle/be persuasive but the stats are who the PC is, not the player. This actually comes under certain deffinitions of Meta-gaming you know. The solution that tends to work best is for a stuck player to make ability cheacks to get hints or clues. Sence motive for "He looks worried by the phrase "Grey city"" and a wisdom cheack for "poking big red buttons seldom ends well." On Other Things: It's not that I want to play a tactical wargame, I just don't ever like to disadvantage myself. I like to plan things out meticulously so I can get all the advantages possible, rather than do something foolish and put myself in harm's way for no reason. I've been trying to work on the metagame issue, but as I said to me there's no point in yelling in character for someone to flank/cast a spell/etc. because the monster you were trying to catch off-guard is now aware of it and will always move away or ready an action to disrupt the spell or whatever. Again, thanks everyone for the insightful replies. And yes, I hope that nobody brings up that Stormwind Fallacy thing; it has absolutely no bearing on this thread whatsoever. This isn't an argument about powergaming vs. roleplaying.Fine but understand this. Meta-gaming is cheating. It is liek going to a wargame with loaded dice. It is not preventing a dissadvantage, it is giving and unfair advantage.
draco1119 06-18-06, 09:49 AM	As far as know ing about Undead: 2nd Ed. in one of the Skills & Options handbooks, there is a skill called Undead Lore. In 3.5 terms, it would be a class skill for Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer. Probably Druid, too. Why not see if you can get it as an off-class skill in 3.5? Also, regarding the turning pally, WTF?!?! I would think it's fairly common knowledge that paladins can turn undead, so how is that metagaming? Unless, of course, your character spent the first 20 years of his life with a hermit and didn't learn anything but herbology from the old man... Seriously, though. Sphyre has a very good point. Come up with a backstory on your character. How did he get to where he is? Who taught him? Did they only teach him how to fight, or maybe moral values, too? (Think Zaknafein) Is he religious? What are his motivations? If you can think of how your character has acted in the past, then you have a decent idea of what he will do in the future.
WayneTheGame 06-18-06, 09:54 AM	As far as know ing about Undead: 2nd Ed. in one of the Skills & Options handbooks, there is a skill called Undead Lore. In 3.5 terms, it would be a class skill for Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer. Probably Druid, too. Why not see if you can get it as an off-class skill in 3.5? Also, regarding the turning pally, WTF?!?! I would think it's fairly common knowledge that paladins can turn undead, so how is that metagaming? The argument came about because the paladin's player didn't see on the battle grid that she could have her two henchmen move out of the way, then move up and be in sight of the undead to turn them (they were around a corner). I pointed it to her out of game ("Hey, [Player's Name], if your henchmen move backwards then you can move up and turn the undead.") and was jumped on for metagaming. Evil_DM: I understand where you (and my group) are coming from, but it's hard to get into the mindset where I'll willingly throw my character into a situation where he's going to get smacked down when I know as a player that I could prevent it. heh.. I won't comment on the loaded dice comment... i am the sort of person who cheats at videogames by using God Mode and Infinite Ammo... :embarrass
draco1119 06-18-06, 09:59 AM	The argument came about because the paladin's player didn't see on the battle grid that she could have her two henchmen move out of the way, then move up and be in sight of the undead to turn them (they were around a corner). I pointed it to her out of game ("Hey, [Player's Name], if your henchmen move backwards then you can move up and turn the undead.") and was jumped on for metagaming. No offense intended, but I would have to say that she was right. If it's not something your character knows, it doesn't exist in-game. If your character doesn't know something, act like you don't know it, either. Essential to good role-playing. Just like, unless your character knew about undead, he isn't going to know the difference between a ghoul and a ghast.
WayneTheGame 06-18-06, 10:02 AM	No offense intended, but I would have to say that she was right. If it's not something your character knows, it doesn't exist in-game. If your character doesn't know something, act like you don't know it, either. Essential to good role-playing. Just like, unless your character knew about undead, he isn't going to know the difference between a ghoul and a ghast. No, you misunderstood.. she knew they were undead. What she didn't see was that she could move up if her henchmen moved back (long, 5-foot corridor) and be within sight to turn them. She knew about the corridor and everything, but she missed seeing that her two henchmen were occupying squares right behind my char (with a bunch of the skellies advancing in front of me), so if they moved out of the way she could take their place, be in view of the skellies and then turn them. I merely pointed that out since she wasn't looking at that area of the grid at the moment.
Sphyre 06-18-06, 10:15 AM	On Character Knowledge vs. Player Knowledge: As I said, roughly half of my group feels that it doesn't matter what your character's skills are (mental skills, physical skill don't apply evidently), if you can't figure the thing out or make a last-minute silly decision your character would never do, then you're stuck. One player's rationale is that if you have a high CHA character, for example, you need to be able to roleplay it or your character doesn't have a high CHA score (they still have the modifier, but I mean if you do a lousy job roleplaying out a diplomatic encounter with your 18 Charisma rogue, you aren't going to persuade him). Her example (this is the Paladin player) is that she's shy in real life but she's playing a paladin so she's being more brash than usual because her character has a high charisma. I see nothing wrong with that, but I don't think you should be penalized for not being as charismatic as your character. If your party is getting all frumpy at you for role playing mental stats, then, how could anyone ever play a character with a mental stat of 12 or above? In addition to that, aren't you supposed to want to play someone who you aren't? That's called role playing. If you're going to simply play yourself in the D&D world, then what's the point of thinking up a character concept, someone who thinks differently than you? If you have that 18 and play a diplomatic encounter poorly by saying "Hey, you, idiot. You suck, Give me money, kiss my shoes and feed my dog. I know you're a guard, and you're going to get in trouble for letting me by, but you're going to let me by anyway." no... that's not going to fly even if you did roll high, because you didn't say anything diplomatic. On the other hand, if you yourself at least tried to be diplomatic, you should be able to roll, and it would be more along the lines of "yeah, same thing, but better" that got you through the diplomatic encounter. But if you have that 18 charisma, then you damn well better have the benefit of it, or who knows you could have a 3 charisma and then go out of character to role play it poorly and be extremely charismatic you'd pass? Sorry, but that's not in character! It makes no sense!! I don't think I support the idea of the way they choose to roleplay. For all I know now is that you're a better roleplayer than them, and they just say you're not a roleplayer because you don't restrict yourself to what they do when they "roleplay." Now maybe you don't roleplay at all, but the way they "roleplay" isn't the only way to roleplay. Make a personality and play that person out as you envision him/her. The rolls are for the mechanics... the roleplaying is for flavor. Role play your character as best you can, but if your character is charismatic and you can't quite live upto it, it's still the character you made, as long as you're making an honest effort, it's just being needlessly nitpicky to deny the charisma bonus... Sounds almost like your group has taken mental stat-based checks out of the game... which is promotes metagaming actually... sounds like a double standard to me!
WayneTheGame 06-18-06, 10:19 AM	Sounds almost like your group has taken mental stat-based checks out of the game... which is promotes metagaming actually... sounds like a double standard to me! I don't follow this.. I'm sorry. We use mental stats and skill checks, but like.. if I have a 20 Int and am trying to figure out a puzzle, it's not like I can make a check to see if my character figures something out (after I spend time roleplaying thinking, that is.. I mean like a DM hint because my character is a super-genius but I, the player, am totally stuck) that I as a player might have missed because I'm not that clever. I don't understand if that's what you mean or not.
draco1119 06-18-06, 10:19 AM	Sounds almost like your group has taken mental stat-based checks out of the game... which is promotes metagaming actually... sounds like a double standard to me! Agreed. @Wayne: How tall is the Paladin (character, not player)? How tall are you? How tall are the henchmen? Did the pally know you were fighting undead? Heck, does the pally have an INT of 4?
WayneTheGame 06-18-06, 10:24 AM	@Wayne: How tall is the Paladin (character, not player)? How tall are you? How tall are the henchmen? Did the pally know you were fighting undead? Heck, does the pally have an INT of 4? All of us were like.. 5'7" or so. Pally had a decent INT.. She knew we were fighting undead. The issue is that the PLAYER didn't look in that corner of the battlemap, or if she did she didn't realize that she could advance up to turn the undead if her two henchmen moved out of the way since they were taking up the corridor and she couldn't occupy the same square (the paladin was not around the corner with the henchmen, but there were two corridors leading to the room with the undead so she saw them and knew what they were; we were trying to do a pincer maneuver). So I pointed to her OOC that she could do that, and was called for metagaming because i was telling the PLAYER something she should have noticed on her own, but didn't for whatever reason. Sorry if I am not explaining it correctly...
draco1119 06-18-06, 10:32 AM	In that case, it would have been better to say it in character, unless, as you earlier posted, it's actually an acceptable method to communicate telepathically.
WayneTheGame 06-18-06, 10:40 AM	In that case, it would have been better to say it in character, unless, as you earlier posted, it's actually an acceptable method to communicate telepathically. It's not... I think I'm just used to the old edition's way where you were ENCOURAGED to discuss actions amongst each other prior to combat, and the rules even said to give the players a minute or two to discuss what they're going to do. Hell, the 2nd editon PHB's combat example has the player's talking back and forth over what they're going to when fighting trolls... the wizard says she's going to use fireball and everyone else is like "No!!" (to the player, not the character) because it'll hit them and she changes her mind because of it... nowadays that's considered metagaming and frowned on; hell the wizard's player would probably be called for metagaming for using fire on a troll, even though it's a legitimate attack spell whether it's a troll or not.
Zyphus 06-18-06, 10:50 AM	Make a "sucky" character that entertains you by concept alone. My new player got to take over a half-goblin bard. Play to have fun instead of thinking in mathematical equations, maxing things out, or even worrying if your character dies. He sucks, after all. If you do something to make yourself laugh each session for 3 sessions you know what their viewpoint is. You still might prefer powergaming, and there's nothing wrong in liking overcoming challenges presented by the DM. But sometimes failing makes a better story. But if you are willing to do this, you should ask a couple players to min/max characters and see what they are missing out on. Sometimes the DM just wants an encounter to end and something to steamroller the competition can both make life easier for the DM and also present a challenge.
Sphyre 06-18-06, 11:02 AM	I don't follow this.. I'm sorry. We use mental stats and skill checks, but like.. if I have a 20 Int and am trying to figure out a puzzle, it's not like I can make a check to see if my character figures something out (after I spend time roleplaying thinking, that is.. I mean like a DM hint because my character is a super-genius but I, the player, am totally stuck) that I as a player might have missed because I'm not that clever. I don't understand if that's what you mean or not. Basically they are saying that you shouldn't play a character who has a higher mental stat than you have. This limits your character abilities to 10-11 (assuming you're an average person) They are saying, go ahead, and play a 3 int, 3 wis, 3 cha person, but if you actually think like you do as a person then you don't have the drawbacks of having those stats. (other than -skill points -will saves -spelllike/su abilities) If you actually were ROLEPLAYING that, you wouldn't be very bright, and thus would take years to figure out a puzzle, wouldn't be very wise, and thus would not know common sense as to not sit on people when you're tired, and not very charismatic, and thusly, you'd fart and spit freely at people and laugh at them, when meeting them for the first time without second thought. That's not roleplaying. In fact it encourages metagaming, because if you take out mental based checks, you're encouraging metagaming. Without being able to roll Knowledge(Religion) for undead, the only way you would be able to know something about a bodak, is through metagaming. I've never had a puzzle for my players to figure out such as: "They call me a reptile and that's as low as I go But I can roll for a while Before I show" (wow, I just made that up on the spot. I impress myself, regardless of it being crap :P) I wouldn't give any hints for high intelligence, but I would in any other kind of puzzle, such as several runes on a wall, and a door that won't open. With an intelligence check I might give the hint that it might involve touching them in a certain order, or touching them all at once, something along those lines to get the door to open, if they couldn't figure that out in the first place, and keep giving hints to the high intelligence person every once and a while.
Lyinginbedmon 06-18-06, 11:12 AM	The two most basic concepts for a character in D&D are Roleplay quality and Optimisation. A single one shouldn't overrule the other, there should be a balance. To that end, Roleplay is the hardest to do. The easiest way is to remember just what life your character is living. They aren't living in Earth 2006, they're living closer to Earth 1066! They don't have nuclear bombs, knowledge of genetics, disease, or calculators (In fact the earliest Calculators (Actually known as Computers - people who computed things) won't come around until the early starts of the Industrial Revolution). But what they do know about is magic, a science we can't even fathom, so in this field they have us beat. Through magic, they can replicate or even surpass much of this missing technology (One wonders why...), they can use a combo of spells to make bombs, they can cure disease, and (depending on their Intelligence score) can maybe do some pretty complex calculations. But they still aren't 100% like us. So, think of how a person at this time in this wierd world would think. Suddenly, you don't think "Oh my, how can I possibly do this tax equation, I'll just go and see if my computer can do it. Doctor Who should be on TV in a minute anyway", you think "Oh my, how can I possibly do this tax equation, I'll have to ask the Noble down the street to do it, I'll even have time to read Doctor Who's latest article on the Church door too!" Simply put, don't think like yourself in 1066, think like someone else in 1066. I'm always amazed at how far the human world has come after I try thinking about how the Neanderthals thought in the Middle Paleolithic period (Around -227,994), because they lived much different lives to us. And so does your character.
draco1119 06-18-06, 11:20 AM	It's not... I think I'm just used to the old edition's way where you were ENCOURAGED to discuss actions amongst each other prior to combat, and the rules even said to give the players a minute or two to discuss what they're going to do. Hell, the 2nd editon PHB's combat example has the player's talking back and forth over what they're going to when fighting trolls... the wizard says she's going to use fireball and everyone else is like "No!!" (to the player, not the character) because it'll hit them and she changes her mind because of it... nowadays that's considered metagaming and frowned on; hell the wizard's player would probably be called for metagaming for using fire on a troll, even though it's a legitimate attack spell whether it's a troll or not. I remember that example! Ahhh, the good old days... Seriously, though, I agree with Zyphus. Make a character with one or two absolutely horrible stats. And then roleplay it. Make a priest of the War God with a low WIS, just for the heck of it. I made a Dwarf Preist of Tempus with a WIS of 14. Every once in a while I'd play like his WIS was more like 6, just for fun. However, due to his backstory, I could get away with it. That's role-playing. The reason his backstory comes into play: Stereotypical Dwarf whose love of treasure overpowers his common sense. Also had an intense fear/hatred of the undead, so every time he faced even one skeleton, he'd fly into a berserker rage that lasted ten rounds. Whether I wanted him to or not. Make your character have an odd quirk or something.
Evingolis 06-18-06, 12:58 PM	well, why dont you simply say "i am king metagamer hell to you" then? you are mixing up playing a character well-prepared and cautious (which is ok) and metagaming (which is sort of cheating) theres nothing wrong with tactics, theres nothing wrong with communication between the pcs, theres nothing wrong with getting equipment/spells to be prepared. this is what you can do and what you should do to keep your pc alive metagaming is using any information you as a person have to aid your char. this does NOT include using fireballs against trolls, and you did not understand the 2nd edition example at all: the conversation is NOT between players, but between chars, and the fireball ís not used cause its so useful against trolls, but because its overall useful (as you stated). whats shown here is not metagamingly using a spell, but some sort of battle communication (primitive form of course) as long as your character has no chance of in-game getting information that help him to avoid a danger, he will face the danger. even if the danger is a creature that kills on sight. yes, thats not nice, and a good DM will not use something like that too easily. you may have warning signs (like stone statues at the entrance of a basilisks cave) or warning information. anyway, dead is part of the game, theres resurrection to deal with it and to get your beloved pc back. so this should not be the end but even if, you had to live with it. you may die in a fight where you are unlucky rolling. will you bend the numbers to survive? you can argue here as well "I´ve spent so much time on the character, I wont let him go for a stupid roll of dice". you may argue that way in any case. communication between players in combat as metagaming: yes, it is, cause in a combat you have to concentrate on what happens in the 6 seconds time of the turn.. and your character may say something, but please no chatting between players. not for hints, not for baking receipts, not for the latest joke. this is simply annoying, it interrupts the flow of the battle. but after battle/game, this should be possible. this is not metagaming then, but role/game discussion, which of course is allowed. you asked for what YOU can do. my advice to the other players in your group (and the DM) would probably sound even less friendly ;) after all, I think you do many things right, only this metagaming thing ... ;) please think about it, good luck with your char and with the group and have fun!
KelanenPrinceofSwords 06-18-06, 01:19 PM	It sounds like your group of fellow gamers are jealous of your intelligent builds and careful tactics. I strongly encourage you to work on roleplaying (as in giving your character some history and a consistent personality), but don't take too seriously when people screech at you for being a powergamer. The definition of powergamer is someone who thought of something cool before you did.
WayneTheGame 06-18-06, 01:26 PM	It sounds like your group of fellow gamers are jealous of your intelligent builds and careful tactics. I strongly encourage you to work on roleplaying (as in giving your character some history and a consistent personality), but don't take too seriously when people screech at you for being a powergamer. The definition of powergamer is someone who thought of something cool before you did. Maybe... they say it makes them feel useless when they can only dish out say 1d8+3 a round and I can do 1d10+3 + 5d6 (Duskblade w/channeled shocking grasp) and do it 8+ times a day. They think it's good to take skills/feats that are useless in the game but suit your character... and my ex girlfriend (who games with us) was saying to me last night that in her opinion the person who gimps their character because what they pick/do suits the character is the better roleplayer than the person who only picks things that gives them a good mechanical advantage
snowlynx 06-18-06, 01:35 PM	1) I firmly believe that "metagaming" is a lame and worthless concept designed to screw the PCs, force characters to intentionally endanger themselves, and require players to not use tactics in battles. Example: I think it is utterly ridiculous to force my character to fall into a trap and take damage, possibly die (depending on level) because while the DM mentioned that to another player at the table that it happens, but my character was not there so I don't know. Do I see the POINT of this? Sure, but I don't want to throw away a character because of this kind of nonsense. Or, as a worse example, force me to suffer the gaze attack of a creature like a Bodak (i.e. save or die) because "Your character doesn't know what a Bodak is so wouldn't know to look away." To me, this is utter garbage that I have to basically throw away a character I spent many hours on. The bright side of anti-metagaming is that it increases drama. For example, let's say you're watching a movie and (you know) that the villains have plotted to set up the hero, beacuse you saw it in a cut scene, but the hero doesn't. The tension brought on by this is the hero starts to get set up would be ruined if the hero suddenly knew he was being set up without any warning and skipped the danger. My best suggestion for overcoming this like of metagaming is to not think of your character as tied to yourself. Have fun with playing the character as a character. Like their faults along with their strengths, and don't think of situations as win/lose. Some of the most interesting plot twists I have seen come about in part because one of the players purposefully plays their character ignorant, all the while knowing it's screwing the situation up more. Some of the most interesting games I've played in have had my character fuming with rage at some part of the story while I, as the player, am trying not to giggle at the predicament. As for tactics: it sounds like your group doesn't work together? If a character finds a trap, they really ought to be marking it so that their fellow adventurers won't fall down the pit. Someone ought to work to distract (flank) the enemy with the rogue because the rogue can hit critical points that way. If someone knows a creature has a deadly attack, they should, in character, warn the group 'avert your eyes!' or some such. This is called teamwork and has nothing to do with metagaming; it has to do with the characters caring about the survival of themselves and each other. Encourage your group to work together at this sort of thing by making suggestions in character, perhaps, and leading by example. 2) I feel that there are certain things a character should know based on their relevant ability scores. My group, however, feels that if you as a player can't figure it out, then your character can't, regardless of what they would know if they were "real". Try a compromise: Since some characters are smarter then their players, suggest that the DM or players give hints to a character who succeds on a check. This is not the same as simply solving the problem with a check, which is (i'm guessing) what your group is balking at. I remember a situation I had in which I cast a spell that had me speaking with my diety aobut some solutions to an issue our characters were having. The DM himself could not think of any solutions and was really frustrated that I had cast the 'get a clue' spell. Fortunately, the players all chimed in with solutions for him, and he relayed these to me. It's an easy solution when the player doesn't have a clue, but the character might. :D 3) As I said in my opening, I'm a powergamer. I don't pick useless feats or waste my precious skill points on useless skills. I look at what my character can do, and make him extremely good at it. My primary stats are the ones that I raise. However, again I have members of my group who frown on this. One person felt that having a Strength of 20 at 5th level was "too high". Others argue that you should take skills that fit your character; while I can agree with this I feel you don't have enough skill points to DO that without gimping yourself in areas that are useful in-game. Maybe if D&D had a "Knowledge Skills" area like Shadowrun it would work (where you have x many skill points for "action" skills, i.e. the ones that really require a roll, and y many skill points for "knowledge" skills which represent things your character knows. Fine elven wines or seedy taverns, for example), but with the system as written there aren't nearly enough skill points to "waste" on background skills when the cost is losing out on relevant in-game skills. It sounds as if your DM is not making all the skills you guys have useful to you in game. Where is the wine tasting contest for the character who has ranks in craft(alcoholic beverages)? And why is the player raising the craft score on their character if they're not checking out breweries or making wines? Every single (knowledge) skill listed in the DMG is useful for something; sometimes it's just figuring out what sort of creature it is you're dealing with. Most crafts and professions can be useful if the players are driven to actually use them and the DM is willing to make them useful, too. If all you're doing in dungeon crawling, then a lot of the skills are useless and if they're not being used, there's no logical reason for your character to be improving them- because he's not practicing with them. (A player once suggested to me that I could not take any more ranks in knowledge (history) because my character already knew everything there was to know about history, so how could I be learning more? He was joking, of course. I swear I used that skill more often then I did any other skill I had....more then concentration, more then intimidate, and more then spellcraft. It was probably the most useful skill I had!)
Evil DM Mk3 06-18-06, 01:39 PM	On the paladin thing, is it not possiblt to pass through a friendly creture, so long as you do not end your turn in their square.
anarco_rata 06-18-06, 01:40 PM	Seems to me that both your group and yourself are a little off. In one hand we got your group. They say that there's no way your charater would know that, for instance, a Bodak can kill you just looking your way. Ok, this is fine, they dislike metagaming. However, they also say that an INT check for solving (or just helping you solve) a puzzle isn't valid, and that you should solve it on your own. Does anyone see a contradiction here? they want you to roleplay your character's lack of knowledge, but not his actual inteligence? then, are they saying that a INT 8 barbarian that is played by a mathematical genius should be able to solve puzzles that the INT 20 wizard can't? On the other hand, you do the same thing, only backwards. You're angry that they don't allow you to use your character's knowledge when a puzzle presents itself, but are also angry when they make you go alone with your character's mental setbacks (not knowing what a Bodak can do, etc) Myself, I consider metagaming both wrong and very boring. If my character doesn't know that fire burns, then I'm gonna touch the shiney red dancing thingie. And burn myself, and learn to never touch fire again. To have your charater grow and learn is a very important part of the game to me. Maybe no to you, and I respect that (as should all). Different people have different ways of playing. I don't know what my point is, I guess it's "you and your group need to commit a little for the sake of each other's enjoyment" Yes, that's a good point, let's leave it there.
Man in the Funny Hat 06-18-06, 01:59 PM	1) I firmly believe that "metagaming" is a lame and worthless concept designed to screw the PCs, force characters to intentionally endanger themselves, and require players to not use tactics in battles.Only if the DM is being an arse and the other players are much worse players than you are. Metagame, or Out-Of-Character knowledge is monitored in order to maintain a sense of realism. It is frustrating for your character to fall into a pit trap that you as a PLAYER knew was there but that your character did not. It is just as frustrating to ME as a player for your character to suddenly gain some kind of psychic power. For example; my character walks around a corner sees, hears, and senses nothing out of the ordinary, walks down the corridor and falls into a pit trap with a gelatinous cube. Then your character later comes around the same corner, sees, hears, and senses nothing out of the ordinary (just as my character) but yours suddenly decides for no JUSTIFIABLE reason that he needs to probe the floor ahead rather than just continue walking. He does it because you, as a PLAYER, are using knowledge that your CHARACTER should not have - just as your D&D character cannot drive a car, use a computer, or invent gunpowder because you-the-player know how. However, it is possible for a DM to get obnoxious about metagaming as well. Using the same pit example - maybe your character SHOULD get a chance to see my characters footprints in the dust that end at the pit, or hear my characters screams in the pit below as he takes damage, or realize that he should be able to see my character up ahead but that I am now gone from sight. Other players can also be jerks. If my character falls into that pit and as a player I know YOUR character will likely fall into the same pit, well I would HOPE that I make some attempt to warn your character. After all, the alternative is that if the first PC falls into this pit then EVERY PC must fall into this pit and die and we might as well not bother playing it out but just all roll up new characters instead so that the NEXT pit trap can kill us all in the same way. What fun. Or, as a worse example, force me to suffer the gaze attack of a creature like a Bodak (i.e. save or die) because "Your character doesn't know what a Bodak is so wouldn't know to look away."This is probably just poor DMing. The saving throw generally IS representing the fact that you do/don't look away from the gaze. You don't automatically fail a gaze attack save simply because you aren't aware the creature HAS a gaze attack. Once your character IS aware that you're dealing with a gaze attack then you can try to avoid it with tactics like using mirrors, etc., instead of just acting normally and hoping your saving throw keeps you safe. Just be aware that creatures can ACTIVELY use their gaze attacks to force you to make a save unless you have some means of completely avoiding having to look at the creature while fighting it. Read the MM, p. 309 for the full explanation of how gaze attacks work and how they are/are not avoided. Worse still is the idea that I cannot give another player advice. Just a few hours ago in my game I got called for metagaming because I suggested to the paladin player that if her henchmen moved out of the way, she could move up and turn some undead attacking us; this launched me into a diatribe against metagaming and drawing the line with what a character would know vs. what the player has a capacity to know (the idea being that if her character had any common sense she would be able to SEE that if the two henchmen moved out of the way to let her advance she could turn. The player, BTW, disagreed completely and agreed that I was metagaming for suggesting it to her).The player is DEAD WRONG. As a player there is NOTHING wrong with giving another player advice on what they might have their character do or not do. Whether the player WANTS the advice or is willing to use it is up to the player. Your best response to this kind of stupidity would be say, "Well if you don't WANT my advice in this situation then you simply have to say so, but metagaming is when I have *MY* character do things based on knowledge *HE* doesn't have. Simply offering you advice from one PLAYER to another is me being POLITE and HELPFUL. So what's your damage?" 2) I feel that there are certain things a character should know based on their relevant ability scores. My group, however, feels that if you as a player can't figure it out, then your character can't, regardless of what they would know if they were "real". This to me is complete and utter trash.It is complete and utter trash. Just as I cannot have my character invent the silicon chip in D&D my CHARACTER knows vastly more about things like swordfighting or spellcasting than *I* do in real life. *I* don't have a supergenius 19 intelligence - but my wizard character certainly can and that DOES count for something. Having said that, the point of putting puzzles, riddles, and similar challenges into a D&D game is not so that my CHARACTER can figure them out - but so that I as a PLAYER can figure them out. If, however, the puzzle or riddle is beyond my real-life capacity to solve then any sensible DM should NOT have a problem with letting a supergenius 19 intelligence character at least make some kind of roll in order to get beyond it and move forward with the game. One person in my group went so far as to say if you can't figure that out then you shouldn't play a character with such a high score. My wizard with a 20 intelligence SHOULD be smart enough to figure certain things out, even if I as a player only have the equivalent to a 12 Intelligence.Next time use this as an IRREFUTABLE comeback: "So if *I* don't have a 20 intelligence I shouldn't play a wizard that does... and thus it is logical that if YOU don't have a 20 strength then you have no business playing a FIGHTER that does, and the same goes for a 20 wisdom cleric, a 20 dexterity rogue, and a 20 charisma bard. You're spouting NONSENSE because by that logic we must all first determine our real-life individual stats because we must not be allowed to play characters that actually exceed them." I don't pick useless feats or waste my precious skill points on useless skills. I look at what my character can do, and make him extremely good at it.Do not ever let anyone tell you that it is a crime for a character to be good at something that you as a player have chosen to make them good at. My primary stats are the ones that I raise. However, again I have members of my group who frown on this. One person felt that having a Strength of 20 at 5th level was "too high". Others argue that you should take skills that fit your characterNext time they try that one tell them to shove it. IT IS NOT THEIR CHARACTER TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH AND HOW TO DO IT. Tell them to run their own frappin' characters and keep their stinking nose out of running yours as well. I'm getting to the point where I'm tired of the arguments and debating with my friends because we can't see eye to eye. I see the relevance of some of their points but I'm totally unable to DO it in practice. When I sit down to create a character, the first thing I think of is something cool that I want to do (e.g. kill things, cast fire spells, etc.) and then build a character around that mechanical concept. I have a very difficult time making a roleplaying concept first and then bringing it to life, because invariably it returns to a mechanical thing in the end.You and your friends need to sit down and go over some of the basic premises of how you approach the game and why. Help me out here; what can I do to make myself a better roleplayer??Roleplaying is less about the mechanics and more about the personality of your character. Don't think about what your character can DO - think about WHY he wants to do it. Motivation. You want your character to be a very efficient killer. Okay. WHY does your character want to be so proficient at killing? Did he always feel helpless as a child? Did he perhaps have to watch his younger brothers and sisters die after failing to defend them against monsters? Does he think that being the best killer will earn him prestige, power, and hot chicks who like scars? You want your character to be a spellcaster specializing in fire-based spells. Okay. WHY fire? Why not water or air? Was it an arbitrary choice or just because fire spells are more plentiful? Were they easier to study when you were learning to cast them? Is your character actually a pyromaniac who is obsessed with fire? Is it because his village was always under attack by Frost Giants or ice creatures that are susceptible to fire, or is there some high-level fire spell that will allow him to defeat a particular foe? Was it because his father was Grand Poobah of the Order of FireFlingers and wants to follow in his footsteps? It's questions like those and the answers you come up with that make choosing that next combat feat or fire spell a roleplaying choice rather than a powergaming choice. When you find yourself avoiding the most POWERFUL option in favor of a weaker, but more INTERESTING option then you will have ceased to be a powergamer and started opening up your understanding of roleplaying. Choosing the most powerful path is easy and it's logical. Too easy. And while it seems illogical, it is often true that the most enjoyable roleplaying comes from NOT being able to simply overpower everything. Try playing a character that you DELIBERATELY choose to be inferior - like the fighter that has to use a variety of tactics because he just isn't as big and beefy as he wants to be, or the wizard that specializes in divination and actually gives up the evocation school because of a prophecy that he would someday become a great oracle.
OliverR 06-19-06, 04:51 AM	My thoughts: Optimization Some Things depend on the campaign style. If I am playing a campaign with a lot of fights and dangers, then every character investing time learning how to bind flowers is somewhat strange. Any person actually running from one danger zone to another will improve his skills to survive this threats. If you are playing a campaign with a lot of downtime, occasional encounters and so on, then there is plenty of room to learn diverse skills. But in such campaigns they are seldom useless. Just bind a beautiful flower arrangement to impress someone important in the storyline. Even in such campaigns there can be notorious optbuilds. There are always people in the world preferring effectiveness over beauty. This concepts are roleplaying builds, too. But as a player you won't profit much of them. Their compat prowess is less asked for, so you will shine less. It is not good roleplaying, to weaken your character. It is not good roleplaying to optimize it. It is good roleplaying to play your character as he would do it himself. ooc If there is one player, who doesn't seee, what his character can do, then there is no fault in advising (player to player). As long as it is pure game mechanic, then there is no problem. The DM should be fine with such things, because this is something, he is responsible for. A Paladin is a full fledged warrior-type. He learned to fight, to turn undeads and so on. The character should know such things, even, if the player doesn't. I agree with you on this point. But never overuse such advice. At some point, there is to much OOC-Talking and the flavor of the moment is gone, eventually. mental abilities Yes there should be profit in playing a high intelligence character. But it shouldn't outplay yourself. You gain the knowledge skills in this case with a high base bonus, that should be enough. Otherwise you nullify the act of playing another character. You then just play a computergame, where anything is aboutz mechanic, nothing about style. Some players like solving riddles. They won't have fun, when your character solves it, with just a roll. So accept it. If their is need in solving it and nobody can, then the GM can use your high stat as plotdevice. On the other hand, if you never let high mental scores come to play, everybody is playing herself, with a new body. It is okay for a non eloquent person to play a bard. he just tries to play in role and the outcome will be decided by the dice. Otherwise any eloquent player will be the party face with a low charisma character.
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 07:00 AM	Thanks again for the helpful advice, everyone. The question now becomes: Is it metagaming to point something out to a player that they don't notice on the grid. e.g. is it metagaming to point out, as I did, that if the Paladin's two henchmen moved away she could move up and turn undead? Or is it metagaming to point out to a player that if she moves diagonally and then to the right she can flank an opponent, if she herself doesn't notice it at first? This to me is giving advice.
geekling 06-19-06, 07:24 AM	Is it metagaming to point something out to a player that they don't notice on the grid. e.g. is it metagaming to point out, as I did, that if the Paladin's two henchmen moved away she could move up and turn undead? Is it metagaming to offer advice, no. But sometimes it is unwelcome. But to bring it back to your paladin cunundrum. The argument came about because the paladin's player didn't see on the battle grid that she could have her two henchmen move out of the way, then move up and be in sight of the undead to turn them (they were around a corner). This is where it can become metagaming. Not necessarily you offering OOC advice to the other player, but for the paladin to act upon it. You may have a birds eye vision of the battlegrid. But the paladin IC does not, nor I assume have some kind of x-ray vision that allows her to see around corners. For the paladin to do so would have meant metagaming on her part. Unless your PC, whom I think you've mentioned somewhere else already had turned that corner, relays the information IC. A simple IC 'Oh shite! undead!' would have sufficed to give the paladin an IC reason to act on the assumption that her turning abilities may be needed. Without it, if she's someone who is strict on metagaming, and seperating IC vs. OOC knowledge she could not. You weren't offering advice as such - as encouraging the paladin player to metagame herself. If your group already have a bit of a conflict over your metagame issues. It is perhaps no wonder that something like this would act as a spark that sets an argument off. As that kind of advice very well could be rather unwelcome. While in another group where the players are more on par with the level of metagaming in the game it would not have.
Leilond 06-19-06, 07:26 AM	If I don't want your advice because i like to play my character without any "intervention" it is a form of KINDNESS to stop giving the advice. So stop your advice because they're not wellcome Metagaming is ridicolous. You MUST play your char with the knowledge HE have and not with the knowledge YOU have. If you meet a Bodak and you never earead nothing about it you'll not "close your eyes" unless you do it WITH EVERY NEW MONSTER YOU ENCOUNTER, like your first TROLL and your first SKELETON, fighting constantly with "closed eyes" the first round, after your character realized that no one is died for the "gaze" of the new monster Things like "I don't want to run in the traps" is absolutely SILLY because this game is ALL ABOUT playing someone ELSE and move him as HE SHOULD in that situation. How does your PC would act in a situation like that? How does your PC would act knowing what he knows and NOT KNOWING what you know? This is D&D, if you don't like it is pheraps better you play Diablo online or WOW So, coming back to your first question Help me become a better roleplayer First of all stop metagaming. Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying. If you want to become a good roleplayer you should stop metagaming. If you prefer to matagame you'll never become a good roleplayer. Plain and simple
geekling 06-19-06, 08:13 AM	Your best response to this kind of stupidity would be say, "Well if you don't WANT my advice in this situation then you simply have to say so, but metagaming is when I have *MY* character do things based on knowledge *HE* doesn't have. Simply offering you advice from one PLAYER to another is me being POLITE and HELPFUL. So what's your damage?" See, I've been reading this thread. And I can't help but suspect that this is a big part of the OPs disageement with the group. WayneTheGame: I'm sorry, this might sound harsh. But you do come across like one of those old biddies that just can't leave something alone. You know the ones, we all know someone like that - the elderly relative that just won't let you do something without a constant stream of "helpful" advice. But in their delivery of said advice comes across as nothing but dissaproving of your way to do things and plainly just an annoyance. The gamer equivalent of the old biddy that hovers behind your back when you're trying to get the washing up out of the way with a constant stream of; "No, no, no! If you wash the knives first and the forks later - it'll be soo much faster... You missed a spot there! If you had done the knives first... etc. etc. ad nauseum." I might be wrong of course, it might just be how you come across on this thread. But if you think that there might be some kernel of truth in this observation. My advice is, ease off your fellow players, don't offer ucsolicitated advice to the players in your group for a while and maybe you'll see things calm down a bit.
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 08:17 AM	Maybe you are right.. as I said, I offered the advice because the Paladin knew the undead was there but because there was a line of people in front of her couldn't advance forward enough to turn them. As an optimizer I like to coordinate things with the group so we have the tactical advantage and THAT is why I offer advice such as "You can move there and flank him" or "If you step back you can still shoot at him, and I can move up and engage him in melee" to players; if I didn't they wouldn't realize it for whatever reason and we would lose that tactical advantage. I'm the kind of player who likes to tactically coordinate things with the rest of the party so we compliment each other, not all of us run around like individuals until someone finally notices that they can flank a creature, about four rounds after *I* saw that they could if they had just moved in a different direction. EDIT: And for the record, I see a distinct difference between dying via chance (i.e. bad dice rolls) and dying because I deliberately walk into it ("La dee da I don't know this thing can kill me with a gaze.. ack! *dead*"). In one situation I have no control over the outcome, in the other I know full well what will happen, but I'm forced to do it anyway.
geekling 06-19-06, 08:32 AM	Maybe you are right.. as I said, I offered the advice because the Paladin knew the undead was there but because there was a line of people in front of her couldn't advance forward enough to turn them. As an optimizer I like to coordinate things with the group so we have the tactical advantage and THAT is why I offer advice such as "You can move there and flank him" or "If you step back you can still shoot at him, and I can move up and engage him in melee" to players; if I didn't they wouldn't realize it for whatever reason and we would lose that tactical advantage. And in most groups, this is a good thing. Especially if you're playing with people new to the game, helping them to realise what they can and can not do is a marvellous thing indeed. But not in all and not all people react well to being given unsolicitated advice. If that's the case with your group, which is does kind of sound like. There's a fine line between offering advice and ordering people around or just being an annoyance and it depends a lot on the people you're playing with. :) EDIT: And for the record, I see a distinct difference between dying via chance (i.e. bad dice rolls) and dying because I deliberately walk into it ("La dee da I don't know this thing can kill me with a gaze.. ack! *dead*"). In one situation I have no control over the outcome, in the other I know full well what will happen, but I'm forced to do it anyway. See here I think is maybe where the difference between strictly no metagaming and 'I can't help but metagame' lies. Walking into doom. Even if I know that doom is waiting... Well it's part of the game. My OOC knowledge of what's ahead - that's the mood music in a horrorfilm. The dunDUNdunDUN of the jaws theme starting playing, and you just know that the monster is going to come jumping onto the screen any moment now... I enjoy the sense of doom, and the elation of overcoming that hopeless situation is just soo much sweeter than if I'd reacted to OOC information and got out of the situation that way. It's not that I'm any less attatched to my characters or want them to die. It's just that when they don't even if you're convinced (because of OOC you know about the Bodak's gaze attack it all helps set the mood, just like the music) that they will ... well that's what counts as "winning" in D&D for me.
Leilond 06-19-06, 08:39 AM	Maybe you are right.. as I said, I offered the advice because the Paladin knew the undead was there but because there was a line of people in front of her couldn't advance forward enough to turn them. As an optimizer I like to coordinate things with the group so we have the tactical advantage and THAT is why I offer advice such as "You can move there and flank him" or "If you step back you can still shoot at him, and I can move up and engage him in melee" to players; if I didn't they wouldn't realize it for whatever reason and we would lose that tactical advantage. I'm the kind of player who likes to tactically coordinate things with the rest of the party so we compliment each other, not all of us run around like individuals until someone finally notices that they can flank a creature, about four rounds after *I* saw that they could if they had just moved in a different direction. Roleplay it AFTER the battle. Make your warrior give suggestion to other PC and not YOU to the OTHER PLAYERS. Make your warrior suggest the right tactic like: "Hey guys. We fight with bravery and strenght, but we lacked in strategy. We must sorround the enemies! Thanks cleric, you saved my life!" Role play DURING COMBAT but only DURING YOUR TURN like: "During the Attack my PC say: Come on Lidda, flank him!!" ONLY DURING YOUR TURN! Because players like to feel like gods during their turns and you MUST SHUT UP during other players turn or you'll take away "their moment of glory or unglory". If you cannot stop saying anything (ANYTHING!!!) durign your friends turn you're going to ruin the game to everyone ROLE PLAY your suggestion. ROLE PLAY ALL what you would like to do. ROLE PLAY. You don't need to "talk to other players" if you could make that "your PC talk to other PC" EDIT: And for the record, I see a distinct difference between dying via chance (i.e. bad dice rolls) and dying because I deliberately walk into it ("La dee da I don't know this thing can kill me with a gaze.. ack! *dead*"). In one situation I have no control over the outcome, in the other I know full well what will happen, but I'm forced to do it anyway. You still confusing what you can control with what your PC can controll. YOU MUST STOP to think this way if you want to become a good role player (as you asked in the post title). If you want to become a good role player you must STOP thinking what YOU KNOW and try to immagine what the PC would do considering only what he should know and not what I know. Good roleplayer must learn to make their PC do things that the players know are MISTAKES. If you cannot accept to make a mistake that you know is a mistake you cannot become a good roleplayer You told "help me to become a good roleplayer" We said to you "Stop metagaming. Make your PC do stupid things forgetting that you AS PLAYER know that is a mistake" You said "I cannot do it. I cannot deliberately make a mistake" Well, you cannot become a good role player than
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 08:46 AM	Right.. I understand that and I'm going to try harder to curb the habit. :) I just don't understand why people who are overlooking something don't want it pointed out.. they disadvantage themselves BECAUSE they're overlooking the thing, and I'm just trying to be helpful by pointing it out... maybe because they're all experienced players? I also think that my group has different ideas of what constitutes Metagaming.. one player nearly got upset with me because were fighting Skeletons and I only have a slashing/piercing weapon that I could only use as piercing without a penalty (6 foot tall ceiling, so I would have a -2 penalty to hit if I tried to swing it). I rolled my eyes OOC and said "Oh, this is going to be fun with what they have" (meaning the DR) and the player sarcastically went "WHAT do they have, Wayne?" as though I was metagaming because I used my full power attack (my in-game rationale being that as a skeleton I'd have to strike it with a powerful blow to shatter it, and given that it had no armor on PA made sense) to attack it.
Leilond 06-19-06, 08:52 AM	Right.. I understand that and I'm going to try harder to curb the habit. :) I just don't understand why people who are overlooking something don't want it pointed out.. they disadvantage themselves BECAUSE they're overlooking the thing, and I'm just trying to be helpful by pointing it out... maybe because they're all experienced players? I think that my group has different ideas of what constitutes Metagaming.. one player nearly got upset with me because were fighting Skeletons and I only have a slashing/piercing weapon that I could only use as piercing without a penalty (6 foot tall ceiling, so I would have a -2 penalty to hit if I tried to swing it). I rolled my eyes OOC and said "Oh, this is going to be fun with what they have" (meaning the DR) and the player sarcastically went "WHAT do they have, Wayne?" as though I was metagaming because I used my full power attack (my in-game rationale being that as a skeleton I'd have to strike it with a powerful blow to shatter it, and given that it had no armor on PA made sense) to attack it. Do you always full power attack the first time you meet a new monster? Or do you make it only with those YOU (and not your PC) know they have low AC? That IS metagaming. If you want to become a good roleplayer you need to: - Full power attack EVERY TIME you encounter a new monster, eventually lowering the power attack each "failed roll". - Never power attack EVERY TIME you encounter a new monster, eventually power upping each "success to hit roll" Why you power attacked against skeletons? Because you known about DR. That's metagaming. It was more "role played" if you did something like this "I swing my attack and immediatly understand that it wasn't so effective like I thought, due to the lacking of flesch to cut, opening my eyes and preparing for a more affective and powered attack" This IS roleplaying, making a mistake knowing that is a mistake but because it is how it shoudl really go if the PC do not know what YOU know Try it, you'll find that isn't so bad... you'll change the view. You'll stop playing for "destroying everything with the best tactic" and start playing "having fun in acting like someone else in a different world governed in magic"
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 08:57 AM	How is it metagaming to power attack something that IS WEARING NO ARMOR WHATSOEVER?? My character is a trained warrior; I studied a combat form called Ahahyanda ("Rage Blade" in Elvish, my in-game name for Power Attack) that taught you to strike swift and hard against unarmored targets, sacrificing grace and skill for a devastating blow. I use it whenever I fight something that doesn't look like it's wearing heavy armor; DR or not. A skeleton in rags is standing in front of me.. I don't know it's resistant to piercing weapons but I figure a powerful enough strike should shatter it (and you CANNOT tell me that's not common sense; something brittle [like bones] 99% of the time is shattered if you hit it really really hard. Maybe I don't know it has DR but I'm certainly smart enough to figure hitting it hard would probably break it into pieces.), so I use Power Attack to represent that powerful strike. Explain again how this is metagaming? I'm not using any OOC knowledge; I'm using the skill I was taught as a warrior in-game. I would use Power Attack whenever confronted with an enemy that looks lightly armored. A trained warrior would know when to strike hard or when to use grace; strike hard if what you're fighting isn't heavily armored, because the force of your blow will deal a grevious wound (i.e. extra damage). Strike gracefully when it IS armored so you can find that flaw in his defenses (i.e. no extra damage but higher attack bonus). This seems like common sense for any fighter-type, not metagaming. EDIT: One more thing, I was under the impression metagaming was only using something you would have no chance of knowing in-game to your benefit. By your logic it would be metagaming to use Power Attack against someone wearing leathers, even though a warrior would know that he isn't armored heavily so you'd want to hit him with a powerful blow.
geekling 06-19-06, 09:00 AM	Right.. I understand that and I'm going to try harder to curb the habit. :) I just don't understand why people who are overlooking something don't want it pointed out.. they disadvantage themselves BECAUSE they're overlooking the thing, and I'm just trying to be helpful by pointing it out... maybe because they're all experienced players? I hope it helps making your time at the game table a bit easier. :) As for why? Could be any number of reasons. It could be that they're trying to learn and feel that they've gotten to the stage where they need to see these things themselves, but you're not giving them a chance to learn from their own misstakes by not letting them make those misstakes. It could be that they are not overlooking it but had another plan, another tactic in mind that perhaps you haven't spotted. It could be that they find that kind of OOC chatter breaking their immersion in the game. It could just be a personality conflict, where this advice and metagaming just is the drop that makes the beaker floweth over in a passive agressive sort of way.
Leilond 06-19-06, 09:28 AM	How is it metagaming to power attack something that IS WEARING NO ARMOR WHATSOEVER?? My character is a trained warrior; I studied a combat form called Ahahyanda ("Rage Blade" in Elvish, my in-game name for Power Attack) that taught you to strike swift and hard against unarmored targets, sacrificing grace and skill for a devastating blow. I use it whenever I fight something that doesn't look like it's wearing heavy armor; DR or not. A skeleton in rags is standing in front of me.. I don't know it's resistant to piercing weapons but I figure a powerful enough strike should shatter it, so I use Power Attack to represent that powerful strike. Explain again how this is metagaming? I'm not using any OOC knowledge; I'm using the skill I was taught as a warrior in-game. A trained warrior would know when to strike hard or when to use grace; strike hard if what you're fighting isn't heavily armored, because the force of your blow will deal a grevious wound (i.e. extra damage). Strike gracefully when it IS armored so you can find that flaw in his defenses (i.e. no extra damage but higher attack bonus). This seems like common sense for any fighter-type, not metagaming. EDIT: One more thing, I was under the impression metagaming was only using something you would have no chance of knowing in-game to your benefit. By your logic it would be metagaming to use Power Attack against someone wearing leathers, even though a warrior would know that he isn't armored heavily so you'd want to hit him with a powerful blow. The problem isn't "Can I justify the action that my PC is taking?". This is METAGAMING, because you decide the action basingo on YOUR knowledge and THEN you try to justify it in game. I trained warrior will not start to power attack without knowing exactly what it's facing unless you play a "crazy one" or an "aggressive one" but you must be ALWAYS crazy or aggressive, not only when it is good. For what your character know, a skeleton can have an HUGE strenght and an INCREDIBLE HIGH natural armor and should be preferable to use Combat expertise instead of Power attack. How can your warrior know that the skeleton do not have any "deflection invisible aura"? How can you character know that the skeleton do not have INCREDIBLE HARD bones that give him very high natural armor bonus? I trained warrior will give some hit (pheraps EXPERTISING them instead of powerattacking) to better know his opponent Unless you play a low winsdom warrior or an incredibily aggressive one, in wich case it is the case you ALWAYS start with powerattacking You say that a trained warrior can understand about every monster simply looking at it the first time. Do that warrior know how hard the skin of a zombi the first time he looks at one? Do the warrior know that using a shield is useless the first time he fight an uncorporeal enemy? Do the warrior can recognize that an allip is incorporeale at a first glance? Can that warrior recongnize that those skeletons have low AC only because they wear no armor? How can the warrior do that? Do your warrior always powerattack against ANY enemy without armor? Do you know how I deal like players like you? I change the monster aspect. You'll find your players fighting a giant lizard but it is a "basilisk". I'll roll "knowledge (arcana)" for every one behind the screen and i'll advise ONLY the players that win the roll (DC 10+HD of creature) and ONLY at their turn. You'll encounter a "zombie" but it is a BODAK and you'll not know about it... and so on. My skeleton will have AC +8 natural armor and will be CR 3. Shadows will make damage to dexterity and so on... After two or three session you'll stop metagaming because what you know is alwasy wrong
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 09:36 AM	Again, I fail to see your logic. How do I know it doesn't have a "deflection aura" or whatever? I don't. But it LOOKS like it's wearing only tattered rags (i.e. unarmored), so my immediate (in-character) rationale is: "It must be brittle, a strong blow will shatter it." Maybe next time it won't be a skeleton or WILL have some kind of aura, but I would STILL use Power Attack (at first, at least) because it LOOKS like it's not wearing anything, and that coincided with my training of "when to strike hard". This was using the logical assumption my character would make, not anything that I as a player would. If I consisentely miss it with Power Attack after a few rounds, I might stop using it. It doesn't mean I'm swinging around like a madman, it's an aggressive combat stance in my character's case (in other words, I changed the flavor of the feat to suit my character but kept the mechanics). Do I always use Power Attack against unarmored things? Yes, I do, unless I start missing a lot because of the penalties and then I drop out of it for a few rounds (which is a logical thing to do). Do I weigh the benefits of using it against things that ARE armored? You bet. I use Power Attack when I (my CHARACTER) feels that he can land a decisive blow. I alternate using it depending on if I think I can hit decisively or not (let me guess, you think that's metagaming too?). The monster I'm fighting doesn't matter. Let's drop this subject, because you seem to think I'm metagaming for using common sense that a 127 year old Elf with a 20 Intelligence (smarter than pretty much every human being on Earth) who is a 5th level character and thus has adventured for a few years would almost certainly know.
draco1119 06-19-06, 09:50 AM	Do your warrior always powerattack against ANY enemy without armor? I use it whenever I fight something that doesn't look like it's wearing heavy armor; DR or not. Looks like Wayne answered the question before you asked it. What he's describing doesn't sound like metagaming, it sounds like something an experienced warrior schooled in a specific style of combat would do. If you have a Fighter/Mage wielding a long sword and casting Magic Missile who notices that the LS does no damage to a wight but MM does, is it metagaming to stop swinging the sword and cast spells?
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 09:56 AM	Thanks, draco1119. I should clarify that I don't think it's even metagaming to bring out a bludgeoning weapon if you see a skeleton. As I said, common sense is that something brittle should be struck very hard. A skeleton's DR comes from it having no flesh to pierce; not a magical effect (as with a Troll's regen, for example). Anyone with half a brain could take a look at a skeleton with no skin but hard bones and figure out that they'd be better off smashing it than trying to poke it in the ribs. Let me put it another way: If my Duskblade had a heavy mace as well as his Courtblade, would I be metagaming if I dropped the blade and pulled out the mace?
Leilond 06-19-06, 09:58 AM	Let's drop this subject, because you seem to think I'm metagaming for using common sense that a 127 year old Elf with a 20 Intelligence (smarter than pretty much every human being on Earth) who is a 5th level character and thus has adventured for a few years would almost certainly know. Let's drop this subject, because you seem to think that a 127 year old Elf with 20 intelligence will know that he's facing a Bodak the first time he meets one without never talking to anyone about Bodaks You asked "Help me to become a good role player" but you don't want to change your game style. If it's ok for you it is double ok for me
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 10:00 AM	Let's drop this subject, because you seem to think that a 127 year old Elf with 20 intelligence will know that he's facing a Bodak the first time he meets one without never talking to anyone about Bodaks You asked "Help me to become a good role player" but you don't want to change your game style. If it's ok for you it is double ok for me No one is talking about the Bodak issue; I dropped that long ago. I was counter-arguing your idea that it's metagaming to use Power Attack on something that has DR but looks to be unarmored, because you seem to think I was using Power Attack based soley on the fact I knew the extra damage would help me against its DR.
moriarty13 06-19-06, 10:13 AM	I don't think it matters what the people on this board think is metagaming or not. It's the players in the group you are in. If you want to stick with the group and have fun, then you need to compromise a little bit and be flexible. If someone complains about an action you take, then in the future consider not taking that action. However, another option is to play a character that is a little more able to metagame. Bards are a good option. Take the Knowledge skills that allow you to identify creatures, make Bardic Knowledge checks for everything. Ask your DM if you can make up a Knowledge (Tactics) skill based on your military studies. Have in-game reasons for knowing what you know. This will also have the effect of making your powergaming a little less noticeable. By optimizing a relatively weak class you will have a character that mixes a little better with the other members of the party (maybe). If you have access to Heroes of Horror then the Archivist is tailor-made for you. It lets you make knowledge checks about enemies and gives the entire party bonuses because you know stuff. Plus they get cleric spells, and that's just really easy to optimize:). I do that sometimes as a player, when the DM describes an opponent I will sometimes blurt out "oh no, my slashing weapon won't work very well!" and I always feel bad because some of the other players don't know it off the top of their heads and so I ruined a fun surprise. But I try to be more careful now.
Leilond 06-19-06, 10:15 AM	No no, you were using the power attack because YOU know the skeleton AC. That's all By the way. I hope you find some good suggestion by me or other persone I repeat the most important (not on metagaming) Do not give out suggestion during your friends turn. Give the suggestion during YOUR turn and Role playing that like "I make a 1,5 m step and slash" roll dice, damage... "and than my PC say: come on Lidda flank him with me!" Remember: only during your turn. Let the people make their mistake or use their preferred tactics; pheraps your tactic is better but it's YOURS and people like to think with their mind ;) (but sometimes they're tactic will be more effective and you'll be surprised) Try to never give suggestion to other players but try to make YOUR PC give suggestion to THEIR PC. This is "good role playing" If you really want to talk Player to Player (instead of PC to PC) about tactics, do it before or after the game session and not DURING, because you make people lose the sense of immersion and immedesimation that is part of the role playing. A normal adventurer can commit some mistake in the emotion of the battle, forgetting his friends and doing very silly things... it is part of the game and part of the PCs. If you correct them you're playing their character and they can fell disturbed. When I play and I ear a player that say "Can you heal me, I have 23 HP on 52" it really hurt me, not for a moral reason or something like, it's because it immediatly BREAK the realism. I prefer to ear "Can you help my dear friend with some cure? I'm very bad wounded". That's role playing.
Sphyre 06-19-06, 10:16 AM	No one is talking about the Bodak issue; I dropped that long ago. I was counter-arguing your idea that it's metagaming to use Power Attack on something that has DR but looks to be unarmored, because you seem to think I was using Power Attack based soley on the fact I knew the extra damage would help me against its DR. Yeah.... if you're still hitting, there's no reason NOT to use power attack. I don't recall where it is in the rules, but it's there. When attacking, you can tell when your attacks are being fully effective, partially effective, or not effective at all. So obviously, you're going to PA if you do find that you're being only partially effective, or not effective at all and see if that makes a difference.
moriarty13 06-19-06, 11:00 AM	No no, you were using the power attack because YOU know the skeleton AC. That's all By the way. I hope you find some good suggestion by me or other persone I repeat the most important (not on metagaming) Do not give out suggestion during your friends turn. Give the suggestion during YOUR turn and Role playing that like "I make a 1,5 m step and slash" roll dice, damage... "and than my PC say: come on Lidda flank him with me!" Remember: only during your turn. Let the people make their mistake or use their preferred tactics; pheraps your tactic is better but it's YOURS and people like to think with their mind ;) (but sometimes they're tactic will be more effective and you'll be surprised) Try to never give suggestion to other players but try to make YOUR PC give suggestion to THEIR PC. This is "good role playing" If you really want to talk Player to Player (instead of PC to PC) about tactics, do it before or after the game session and not DURING, because you make people lose the sense of immersion and immedesimation that is part of the role playing. A normal adventurer can commit some mistake in the emotion of the battle, forgetting his friends and doing very silly things... it is part of the game and part of the PCs. If you correct them you're playing their character and they can fell disturbed. When I play and I ear a player that say "Can you heal me, I have 23 HP on 52" it really hurt me, not for a moral reason or something like, it's because it immediatly BREAK the realism. I prefer to ear "Can you help my dear friend with some cure? I'm very bad wounded". That's role playing. To quote the SRD: "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action. " So feel free to yell out "turn those evil undead scum!" whenever you like. Regarding Power Attacking a light-armor wearing person. Your character has lived and fought for years. Your character KNOWS that leather armor isn't very good protection and you can feel free to swing like crazy rather than aiming carefully at a joint in the full plate. Just because you as a player know that an opponent has low AC doesn't mean your character doesn't say in his head "Ok, my foe has only light leather armor, no shield, and is without a helmet. I'm going to swing really hard!" That's just common sense. If your character has worked with the other characters in the party for some significant amount of time then it makes sense that you would all be intimately familiar with each other's abilities. After all, your very life depends on them. I always assume that when sitting around the campfire during travels, your own abilities come up in discussion. "Remember that swarm of ghouls that attacked us? I really should have called on the power of my deity to send them packing." Again, just common sense.
Leilond 06-19-06, 11:13 AM	To quote the SRD: "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action. " So feel free to yell out "turn those evil undead scum!" whenever you like. That's a very good suggestion to give to someone that is having problems with his friend due to his "suggestion" abitude. Good point guy ;) Regarding Power Attacking a light-armor wearing person. Your character has lived and fought for years. Your character KNOWS that leather armor isn't very good protection and you can feel free to swing like crazy rather than aiming carefully at a joint in the full plate. Just because you as a player know that an opponent has low AC doesn't mean your character doesn't say in his head "Ok, my foe has only light leather armor, no shield, and is without a helmet. I'm going to swing really hard!" That's just common sense. If your character has worked with the other characters in the party for some significant amount of time then it makes sense that you would all be intimately familiar with each other's abilities. After all, your very life depends on them. I always assume that when sitting around the campfire during travels, your own abilities come up in discussion. "Remember that swarm of ghouls that attacked us? I really should have called on the power of my deity to send them packing." Again, just common sense. Sure, but the fact that his friends really blame him seems to suggest that AT LEAST he does it in the wrong way, usually doesn't roleplaying it but simply telling "Hey mark, take those heanchmen away from that square, take a 1.5 free step and use screw undead ability, and you Paul, use your move action to flank the dire wolf in position H13 so you take the +2 to hit" Don't sound better something like: "[Name of PC, not PLAYER], call to the power of your god against these undead! Could you?" or "Hey [the other PC, not Player], Help me flanking this wolf or I'll be in trouble". It look it doesn't change so much, but people that have fun in immedesimation and realism will really have lots of problems with the first way and will really have fun with the second. It's so simple So, it isn't only a matter of "what you can do and what you can't by the RAW" but also a matter of "What is better to do and how to do it so that all we have fun?" You can do the right things in the wrong way causing more problems than doing the wrong things in the right way
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 11:18 AM	Leilond when you word it that way maybe that IS the problem. In the example from my game, that's just what I did.. I told the player "Hey, [Player name], you can move your henchmen back and then move up to turn undead" because she did not look in that corner of the battle mat and notice that she COULD do it, instead of "[PC], order your comrades to fall back and use your deity's power to smite these undead!" or whatever. I guess my biggest issue with saying it "in character" is that the enemy hears you. Whereas if I remind a player of something they're failing to notice OOC, the enemy (in-game) doesn't hear it. My group has this big thing about using sign language or code messages when speaking in char (the guy who does it all the time used to be in the military), but half the time I have no idea what the hell he's saying, and he won't repeat it in plain terms.
Viper3220 06-19-06, 11:30 AM	1) I firmly believe that "metagaming" is a lame and worthless concept designed to screw the PCs, force characters to intentionally endanger themselves, and require players to not use tactics in battles. Example: I think it is utterly ridiculous to force my character to fall into a trap and take damage, possibly die (depending on level) because while the DM mentioned that to another player at the table that it happens, but my character was not there so I don't know. First of all, you should get a chance to notice it too, and if not then the other character there should warn you, otherwise yea you're going to fall if you don't make a save. Or, as a worse example, force me to suffer the gaze attack of a creature like a Bodak (i.e. save or die) because "Your character doesn't know what a Bodak is so wouldn't know to look away." Yea if you're one of those players that as soon as they meet a troll they run at it and hit it with a lantern to catch it on fire, isntead of attacking it like you normally do, that's really bad roleplaying/metagaming. That's why characters get knowledge skills, so they can know about monsters and what they can do. Those are the players that should be able to look away instead of make a save. Worse still is the idea that I cannot give another player advice. Just a few hours ago in my game I got called for metagaming because I suggested to the paladin player that if her henchmen moved out of the way, she could move up and turn some undead attacking us THIS though sounds like you're trying to help a fellow player out because maybe you think that her character would be smart enough to do this. If she doesn't want friendly advice, screw her! What I do..... is I always say stuff like "you know what you wanna do sounds like X" or "ooh you know what you could do?" and 9/10 times the player THANKS me for it, because the PLAYER didn't see the opportunity but the CHARACTER most likely would have. Especially when something like, there's a force wall and the mage makes the spellcraft check to know that it's a force wall but the player doesn't know that a discintigrate spell takes it down, that's where I come in. But let's say the 10 int/12 wis orc fighter who hasn't seen much magic starts beating on it. I would first of all expect the player to roleplay it out if they did know about force walls. I also wouldn't tell the player "hey it's invincible, you can't break it" if he didn't know. If there's a magic user in the group, that's their job to let the orc know that he can't break it like that, if not have him learn from experience. It's when the DM exploits things like this so he can "win" that you feel discouraged from roleplaying and feel more like metagaming.
Leilond 06-19-06, 11:35 AM	Leilond when you word it that way maybe that IS the problem. In the example from my game, that's just what I did.. I told the player "Hey, [Player name], you can move your henchmen back and then move up to turn undead" because she did not look in that corner of the battle mat and notice that she COULD do it, instead of "[PC], order your comrades to fall back and use your deity's power to smite these undead!" or whatever. I guess my biggest issue with saying it "in character" is that the enemy hears you. Whereas if I remind a player of something they're failing to notice OOC, the enemy (in-game) doesn't hear it. My group has this big thing about using sign language or code messages when speaking in char (the guy who does it all the time used to be in the military), but half the time I have no idea what the hell he's saying, and he won't repeat it in plain terms. Finally we arrived to the problem. It is not very simple DURING A BATTLE to make long phrases using sign language, because PC are occupied to look at opponent movement and attacks and only give some quick look to the other PC. So you need to use a "shorter phrases"; you can do something like this "My PC use the sign languages to say: [PC name], god power - turn undead - then I charge" Try to immagine the situation and you'll immediatly recocnize that is isn't realistic to bestow long and complex commands during dangerous fight situation. Think a warrior that is fighting two dangerous monster that have to look to your hands because you're making some secret signs! It is absolutely unbelivable! You need to cry to be sure he will understand the tactics you suggest. If the DM is not too hard he/she will permit only a single word or two suggestion made in this way, like "Flank him" and no more, but you need both hands free or you really intend to creat a complex language only using face expressions?
BloodDragon 06-19-06, 11:37 AM	I am a powergamer by nature! Hokay! I am by far not the best RPer but I certainly have a few tips and tricks for you that help me stumble by. 1) I firmly believe that "metagaming" is a lame and worthless concept designed to screw the PCs, force characters to intentionally endanger themselves, and require players to not use tactics in battles. Alright. Metagaming! Something everyone suffers from now and again so don’t feel too left out. I felt that point of view you have every time my DM says “Your character doesn’t know that” I Clench my teeth and take it in strides but not ever situation is like that. Using your Wizard character for example: You could say as part of his background that he studied various monsters and creatures reserving some knowledge skills for when/if you want to put some ranks in them and giving your character some very basic knowledge of all things that bleed Exp. Another concept I used to give a character some stereotypical or superstitious views on all creatures, like believing ALL Dragons breath fire, thus if one open it’s mouth you know to dodge regardless of what comes out. Or if you look into the eyes of the Decent or demon they can steal your soul, so your character will always avoid the gaze of ALL undead and ALL extraplanar beings, seems like a cheap way to avoid certain predicaments? Yes However also grants you some interesting Rping experiences, using the same to examples we your party is making a deal with a gold dragon your character looks on edge and is ready to drive out of the way whenever the creature talks. Or when your speaking to an Arch-Angel here to grant you an award for slain a bunch of cultists is leaves a strange situation where you keep avoiding eye contact. For the most part however you have to roll with it just try to have fun with it, Usually your DM isn’t trying to kill you and your party in the first place. If he is though I’d suggest talking to him about it. Imagine you are looking through your figures eyes and can only see what he sees. If you’ve looked around the corner before you know there is a spike trap with two kobolts there however if you haven’t well… I suggest a listen check no DM can say “Making a listen check now is Metagaming!” because listening is ‘mostly’ unconscience. So you can hear to two kobolts whispering to each out, if you don’t just carry on, besides as a wizard you should be letting the meat shields go first :D In your example if the paladin’s henchmen moved the Pally could move up and turn (Lets assume the pally did know the undead were there) your character should shout out: You: “Henchman move out of the way! Paladin’s-Name! Get up there and do something about those Undead!” You should be staring directly at the player when you say this so they get the idea. Not if the person him/herself doesn’t get it: Pally (not clueing into using turn undead) “And do what?” -or- “And start hacking and slacking!? I’ll be killing” You answer: “I’m sure there is something that the ‘power-that-be’ you believe in could do” Or “You’re you one that believes in higher powers can’t they help you do anything?” Basically whatever you say make your character instead say and never use ability names but hint heavily. 2) I feel that there are certain things a character should know based on their relevant ability scores. I agree completely and unquestionable agree. One of 3Es concept was to help people who aren’t naturally clever a chance to “persuade the king of thieves into leaning him that large Ruby.” Me and another player had a stand off with the DM and the rest of the group on this topic. We settled on a combination of the two where we HAVE to role play what we say and depending on what we say we get bonuses and minuses to our diplomacy roll. We must both roll and Role Play regardless, but I’m happy about that situation because it promotes Rping and allows you to use your skills at the same time. If you convence the general idea of what you want with nothing favourable to say and nothing that upsets said person then no Bonuses apply and you use your roll normally. I suggest taking a similar approach, talk to your DM about it. 3) As I said in my opening, I'm a powergamer. I don't pick useless feats or waste my precious skill points on useless skills. I look at what my character can do, and make him extremely good at it. Good! I’m really not sure of too many people who would constantly take flaw after flaw after flaw. For the sake of Rping. At character creation I may my wizard a Cripple, my Monk deathly afraid of insect creatures to where she just runs and babble incoherently, or my fighter paranoid about taking off his helm else the very air will suck out his brains. But I seldom if ever take any flaws after character creation. That’s the DMs, job post Char Creation, to cut off your arm/ Curse you/ have a helm of opposite alignment slip on your head, not yours. I'm getting to the point where I'm tired of the arguments and debating with my friends because we can't see eye to eye. I see the relevance of some of their points but I'm totally unable to DO it in practice. When I sit down to create a character, the first thing I think of is something cool that I want to do (e.g. kill things, cast fire spells, etc.) and then build a character around that mechanical concept. I have a very difficult time making a roleplaying concept first and then bringing it to life, because invariably it returns to a mechanical thing in the end. One word solves Metagaming completely, “Good Rping” (Two words). I RP with some one who is EXCATLY like you when pick feats and spells and such he never wastes a skill point or feat, his character is already preplanned to level 20, tossing fireballs that are three times the Creatures HD worth of dice. However no one in are group gives a damn because he is a better Rper then all of us put together. Complete with accent and everything. Alright I’m generally pretty creative with character concepts but when my Monk bites the dust when running away for monstrous spider and accidentally runs right into a Gelatinous-Cube (True story). I want to get back in the game fast, so I garb a character sheet work out mechanically how a Combat rogue should work and before I know it I have a background-less character in the game. What do I do? “Stereo types” and/or Cliché idea for your character and live up to it. Since Stereo types are so under used it’s actually pretty creative to go in with and exaggerated “Grog Drinking, Swash Buckling, hero Jack-Hinks!” Or “Maniacal Bard who loves telling story of Battle Glory and blood” The first session will seem pretty silly but you start to get a feel for it and but the 3rd – 4th session of playing this stereotype you will have focus on parts of his personality you like and left out the parts you don’t Voila, Character personality. It works and some of my most rememberal characters are thanks to that concept. (Just avoid the Cliché Rogue Stereotype, that gets you no where and it over used by every adventurers out there anyway.) And just a note I know you’d rather not spend point on “Useless” skills but knowledge skills help out a lot when you DM puts something out of MM3 and you have NO clue what it is OOC, your character suddenly thanks to the these skill know that ‘Whatever-Whatever’ is weak to cold attacks. Knowledges are as follows (I believe) Knowledge (Arance): Magical Beasts Knowledge (Nature): Plants / Fey / Druid… Stuff Knowledge (Planes): Extra planer / Outsiders / Demons / Angels etc etc Knowledge (Religion): Undead / Devils? / and other unholy abominations Knowledge (Local): Thugs / Guilds / Maybe the local Bug bear Tribe Knowledge (Dougenering): Aberrations and anything that doesn’t fit into the above Don’t use all the skills. You naturally have a high Arance Check I would hope, wizard. The Druid should have a good nature, the Cleric should have a good Religion, and Local a poor choice anyway so don’t worry. So there four things you don’t have to worry about and generally Planes is so obscure or obvious to care about. (ie the flaming winged demon thingy. Yeah don’t use fire) Knowledge (Dougenering) is the only one you should really have to drop a point or two in just so you have it. If your against an undead (For example) and your character doesn’t know what it is. The first thing out of your mouth should be “Doesn’t anyone know anything about this abomination?” While directly staring at the party cleric/paladin. Lastly if your worry about the “Big bad guy” hearing you guys shouting commands to each other. Next level, 2 skill points will solve that, Language: “Sign language” if your DM says you don’t know it then it’s your own version of Sign language. You’re a 20 Int wizard. Make it up and teach it to the party. “Hey guys I’ve been working on this great idea to help us out in Adventuring” And they all put in 2 skill points next level not only does this help you mechanically but its good RP content too. Start telling the DM now that “I start working on sign commands and write them down in my book” So that when you do level up its not out of no where. Best of luck to you, and excuse my Convoluted sentences and wording. I do have the best intentions. :)
moriarty13 06-19-06, 11:39 AM	Leilond when you word it that way maybe that IS the problem. In the example from my game, that's just what I did.. I told the player "Hey, [Player name], you can move your henchmen back and then move up to turn undead" because she did not look in that corner of the battle mat and notice that she COULD do it, instead of "[PC], order your comrades to fall back and use your deity's power to smite these undead!" or whatever. I guess my biggest issue with saying it "in character" is that the enemy hears you. Whereas if I remind a player of something they're failing to notice OOC, the enemy (in-game) doesn't hear it. My group has this big thing about using sign language or code messages when speaking in char (the guy who does it all the time used to be in the military), but half the time I have no idea what the hell he's saying, and he won't repeat it in plain terms. Wow, if other players insist on actually SPEAKING in shorthand or code or sign language, then that's going overboard. I mean, they don't actually speak Elvish or anything like that, right? Isn't it the same thing? If all your characters learned "Military Code" language, then you can speak freely and just preface it by saying "In MC language I say 'Order your flunkies out of the way, step a little to the right, and unleash the fury of the Gods!'". Using a battle map suggests that the group wants some tactical combat in the game but their actions (at least from what I've read here) suggest that they should probably be playing without a mat and use a more cinematic style.
STAT 06-19-06, 11:58 AM	Maybe... they say it makes them feel useless when they can only dish out say 1d8+3 a round and I can do 1d10+3 + 5d6 (Duskblade w/channeled shocking grasp) and do it 8+ times a day. They think it's good to take skills/feats that are useless in the game but suit your character... and my ex girlfriend (who games with us) was saying to me last night that in her opinion the person who gimps their character because what they pick/do suits the character is the better roleplayer than the person who only picks things that gives them a good mechanical advantage Well sure, if by better roleplayer she means blithering idiot. Maybe they should use all that time they spend actively gimping their characters into picking feats and skills that both compliment their characters roleplaying and are useful. As others have said it's give and take. You should work on your roleplaying but tell them that if you're going to work on being a better roleplayer that they should try to work on not sucking. You probably should use diplomatic language but I personally have little patience for people who actively make their character worse. As for the not alerting enemy's to your actions when shouting orders in combat, our group picked a language that we would all know. Now in combat when we need to talk we just use that language and most people wont understand what you're saying. It'll only cost your characters 2 skill points so it's not a bad deal, plus you'll know a new language.
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 12:10 PM	Well, the code thing isn't as extreme as I make it.. the person just roleplays it and says things in short, broken bursts rather than flat out say "Two orcs behind that rock" he might say "Two around!" and point towards the rock. But he gets upset if the rest of us don't do it and I actually say "There are two over here!" I guess because he thinks it's alerting them. I don't know; it's not a big deal. For the record, my character's a Duskblade, not a wizard :) But the advice is still sound. I think I'm going to use some of the advice given to me.. and hopefully it will fix the problems with my "metagaming" :rolleyes: because I reminded someone they can move up two squares and then left instead of diagonally and avoid an AoO, or mentioned that they'll have a better radius with Fireball if they center it 10' away from the creatures when the player didn't realize it at first.
Mysteria 06-19-06, 01:37 PM	Hm, I'm curious, does your character have a background? If not - get one! :)
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 01:49 PM	Hm, I'm curious, does your character have a background? If not - get one! :) Yes he does (although it's a blatant Star Wars ripoff). :D I even gave the DM about 4-5 plot hooks that involve my character.
draco1119 06-19-06, 01:54 PM	I think I'm going to use some of the advice given to me.. and hopefully it will fix the problems with my "metagaming" :rolleyes: because I reminded someone they can move up two squares and then left instead of diagonally and avoid an AoO, or mentioned that they'll have a better radius with Fireball if they center it 10' away from the creatures when the player didn't realize it at first. I'll answer this in two parts. As a warrior with 127 years of experience, wouldn't your character be able to recognize this as a dangerous and stupid move? Although, Leilond brings up a good point. STAY IN CHARACTER to warn the person. I'm not familiar witht the Duskblade class, so I have to ask: can your character cast Arcane spells? (I'm not asking about Fireball specifically because A) it's an iconic spell that 99% of the adventurers/wanderes in D&D are going to know what it does/looks like, even if they wouldn't know the full extent of power. And B) there are other area-effect spells that you might be able to cast. If your character can't (or doesn't have ranks in Knowledge (Arcane), then you shouldn't say anything. If you do say something, again STAY IN CHARACTER when you say it.
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 02:02 PM	Two comments: 1) I meant telling the player that IF they moved up and to the left they would avoid the AoO, when the player was planning to move diagonally and trigger it. My apologies for the wording on that. I mean a situation like this: [Player A moves his mini on the board, which would trigger an AoO from the monster] Me: Hey, Jon, you could move this way instead (demonstrates on the battle grid) and not trigger the AoO. 2) Yes, a Duskblade can cast arcane spells (not Fireball, I meant another person going to do that). Again, I mean OOC suggesting to another player who was going to cast Fireball that they could hit more monsters in the blast radius if they centered it in a place other than where they were planning to. Not telling them to do it, but as in: Jon: I'm going to cast Fireball, centered on that Ogre!" Me: Hey, Jon, you can catch those three bugbears too if you center it two squares to the right instead! In the case of my original example i'll try to explain what happend: we were in a 5 foot wide, about 25 foot long corridor that opened into a chamber. There's another corridor parrellel on the other side. I'll try to do illustrate the diagram.. bear with me as I don't really know how to format it on the boards. s = skeleton d = duskblade (me) h1 = Paladin's Hechman h2 = Paladin's Henchman p = paladin [s] [d] [h1] [h2] [p] The paladin was about 35 feet or so away, with the other corridor in front of her (blocked by a fire; the BBEG set some captive villagers on fire) The paladin's turn comes up and her player is deciding what to do, and she decides to delay her action because she can't figure out what she should do. OOC I tell her "If your henchmen backed up you could move over there (i.e. where they are) and see the skeletons to turn them" and got jumped for metagaming. :confused:
draco1119 06-19-06, 02:17 PM	1) In that particular case, I would have to say you were wrong. After the battle, you could have said "Ya know, when you move in a straight line in a battle, it makes it easier for the enemy to swing at you. Next time we fight, try moving around a little farther away from the bad guys so they don't try to take your head off while you're going to . But say it one character to another. [i]Role-play it. Heck, offer to teach the character how to watch the flow of a battle. Just for kicks, see if the DM will give him a bonus on his Spot checks in battle just because you taught him how to watch for openings between the combatants. But don't ask for XP, because then you'll be accused of Powergaming/selfishness/blah blah blah. 2) In this case, if you had done it in character, I think it would have been okay. As long as it's something you had seen before/been taught about when you were being schooled in magic.
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 02:22 PM	So.. you actually think it IS metagaming to point out to a player that they can do something different than what they were thinking of doing, such as "Hey you could move over here, still flank the monster for your +2 bonus and not trigger an attack"?? :confused: :eek: That's a very interesting viewpoint. You are a better man than me for actually doing that; my group doesn't go THAT extreme in forcing EVERYTHING to be roleplayed between characters.
draco1119 06-19-06, 02:39 PM	So.. you actually think it IS metagaming to point out to a player that they can do something different than what they were thinking of doing, such as "Hey you could move over here, still flank the monster for your +2 bonus and not trigger an attack"?? :confused: :eek: That's a very interesting viewpoint. You are a better man than me for actually doing that; my group doesn't go THAT extreme in forcing EVERYTHING to be roleplayed between characters. Not everything. It just seems to me that since your group is complaining about your "metagaming" :rolleyes: then do everything possible in character. If they don't like you giving advice to them OOC, then do it in character. If they wanna trigger an AoO, you have 2 choices. You can A) let them (I kinda lean towards that one. It's not called survival of the stupid.) or B) yell "No you, idiot!! Don't go straight! Zig zag; it makes you a harder target!!" (As a guess it's a situation of them thinking "it's my character and I'll do what I want with it. In which case, they should let you do what you want with yours.)
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 02:45 PM	Ohhh okay. Yeah, I might have to try that and see what works. Maybe they think I'm trying to butt in? P.S. sorry if my previous comment came off a little aggressive.. no offense intended :)
draco1119 06-19-06, 02:48 PM	None taken. No blood no foul. :P
Sphyre 06-19-06, 03:30 PM	Yes he does (although it's a blatant Star Wars ripoff). :D I even gave the DM about 4-5 plot hooks that involve my character. Aha. Here's something that can help you become a better roleplayer. Spend time on your background and make it unique. Don't play "Legolus" or "Gumli" or "Hon Sulu" or any other popular characters as a character concept. First of all it's completely unoriginal. How can you role play a character who's original, when you're trying to be like some other person? If you try to play how "this person" would be, then you're applying someone elses life, experiences, and situations onto how you're reacting to the life, experiences and situations that you're getting by role playing the character now. While Han Solo might have shot someone with his blaster in a bar, you're not Han solo, you don't have a blaster, you're not in a bar, not in the same time frame, and don't have have the same people and situations to react to. The second reason is, it's restrictive. How can you make a character you're really going to connect with, if you're trying to emulate another character from somewhere else, you're not developing your character as you roleplay him/her. What you're doing is trying to become something that you're not. You never get a chance to branch off and have your character learn something or act a different way than the way that you've dug yourself in a hole in. I'm sure there's more reasons... but I think you'll get the point. Come up with a unique person. Be creative and make a person out of nothing.
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 03:49 PM	I see what you mean, although didn't really go extreme; basically I took the underlying themes of Star Wars.. since I'm the first to play a Duskblade, I got to decide its history and I decided that it was the "Sith" version of the Bladesingers and was created by the Vyshaantar (the evil elven empire long ago in Faerun history); so my character is motivated by a desire for power (we're playing a very mercenary, "not evil.. just not good" campaign), although I threw in a blatant Anakin/Obi-Wan scenario with my character's ex-mentor.. well, no fight scene (yet..) because I would have gotten totally pwned. Still, I see exactly where you're coming from.
UltimateReality 06-19-06, 05:34 PM	On the topic of ripped-off backgrounds: I don't mind them. There are two things and two things only the player must understand when using them though. 1. Your character is not the fictional character you based him off of. The DM is not beholden to provide you opportunities to have your Han Solo rip-off go help rescue a captured princess, he doesn't have to give you any sort of vehicle named the Millenium Falcon, and he doesnt have to toss in an NPC named Luke. He may disallow a large, hairy Chewbacca ripoff as a cohort if he feels like it. 2. As with all background plot hooks, the DM may do with them what s/he likes. If you have your Aunt Lucy disappear, but really want her to have died horribly in some spice mines somewhere...either write it into your backstory, or let the DM know. The DM may just have had disappeared Lucy turn into your next BBEG. I've also seen this happen a couple times to players who wrote their backstories too tightly, closing off all the plot hooks they opened. (One player in particular had all the NPCs in her backstory constantly die.) Back on topic, Wayne, you seem to have gleaned some useful ideas and the advice you came here to get. Best of luck to you! :)
malignor 06-19-06, 06:24 PM	Roleplaying? Here's how I suggest it. 1 - making your character Before you make your character put the books and dice and character sheet down. Talk to your DM about his campaign and what the setting is like. High magic? Dragon-centric? You start in a small town? What's the opening scene? What does the average character know? From this, think of what kind of character to play... a holy roller? An arcane master? A muscle-bound warrior? A half-mad pickpocket in rags? Talk about it with the DM and/or other players. Is there a potential BBEG in this world? Maybe have some history that touches on it ("his ancestor cursed my family line!"). Then from there let the ball roll... what was your character's childhood like? What did your parents do for a living? Did you get along with them? Howabout brothers and sisters? Where are they all now? Past friends? Past lovers? Past enemies and rivals? What are your character's interests? If you're not inspired to answer these questions, just make something up and imagine it. And think about making a character for a great movie, not a tabletop game. Once you have your character concept, then pick up the dice and books. Make a character who fits the concept. The more mighty your concept, the more mighty your build should be. If there are some feats or abilities that are just "too cool" to pass up, think of a way for it to fit your existing concept. How did you learn this feat? Who taught it to you? Where is your master/teacher now? 2 - Metagaming First off, if metagaming will save your character from certain doom, but playing in character will leave you with a lame death, then there's a problem. You should never be obligated to kill your own character, and the DM shouldn't be putting you in such situations where you have to choose between metagaming and character death. This is something that needs to be solved between you and your DM... there are exceptions, such as those situations when the DM and player collaborate to make for a grand, glorious death, all for the sake of the plot. It may sound lame, but it comes down to good stories for later and bragging rights - which, to me, is what gaming is about... memories and "cool factor". Second, using player knowledge is metagaming. What if Gollum and the Nazgul just gave up because thet knew the plot dictated that Frodo would cast The Ring into Mount Doom? What kind of movie would that be? The answer is lame. Get out of "game to win" mode and get into "game to make the story" mode. Roleplaying games are part game, part theatre. You're playing the main character in a movie, and the movie will suck if the main character suddenly uses all this information he never had and shouldn't have to get an easy win or completely evade what would have been an exciting scene. 3 - Best or Worst of 2 Worlds Think of a diagram. There are 2 circles intersecting. One is the set of all the things your mind is capable of - what you know, your social skills, your intelligence and so forth. The other is all the things your character's mind should be capable of - what your character knows, their social skills, intelligence and such. The part where the two circles overlap is the stuff you are both capable of... like you both know that fire is hot, you both can count to number X, you both know how to say "please" and "thank you" and so forth. What you're trying to do is use the entirety of both circles - all of what you know and can do, and all of what your character knows and can do. This is unfair. Han Solo doesn't get to know and do all the things Harrison Ford can know and do. If he did the Episodes IV V and VI would have been silly and lame. Harrison Ford roleplayed Han Solo, using Han's mental capacities while the camera was rolling and not Harrison's. "In Game" should be like "Roll Camera". You shouldn't get the best of both worlds. Imagine if James Earl Jones (as Darth Vader's voice) went "Hey! I'm not gonna help my son and kill the Emperor - I read the script and I know it'll kill me!". Imagine that and look at your character in the game as if it were a movie. You shouldn't get the best of both worlds. What you're saying is that your group wants you to have the WORST of both worlds - only that little section where both the circles overlap. As a result, your character's knowledge, intelligence and social abilities get gimped, because they claim he can't think or understand or say anything you can't either. I suggest you draw the 2-circle picture and call them a bunch of silly fascists for not letting you properly roleplay.
Sinaz 06-19-06, 06:37 PM	@WayneTheGame I want to give you some ammo for an argument/debate/criticism that you can engage in with your DM. I read your original post, and I felt that you were trying to play in a good spirit of the game and your DM was basically going Robotron on you (why can't I shoot diagonally? Because it's against the rules!)... turning what should be a smooth enjoyable cerebral game into a blocky, chunky, and ultimately buggy RAW experience. I both play and DM with experienced and well seasoned players. We have refined our skills and imagination so that our games feel seamless and feverishly paced. To get to this level of playing, we have had to really put a lot of the D&D mechanics into a sort of perspective. It is this perspective I want you to take to your DM. I'm going to apply context based on two of the things you mentioned in your first post. In regards to metagaming, and its relation to traps, pitfalls, and perilous encounters... The DM needs a certain level of maturity and precedence for traps and perilous encounters. It should never be the DM vs. the Player (immature). That is, the DM should not be giddy with anticipation waiting for the player to step on a trap or encounter a creature that he feels the player has no realistic way of surviving. He needs to account for gut-instinct in the players, and at the same time properly feed them a set up for things to come. For instance, with a trap- the RAW sort of treats traps as a motion sensor for a porch light. You get too close and you trigger it, and there's not much you can do lest you search for it. I tend to precedent my traps with the remains of others who have succumbed, or clues that should illicit an "I've got a bad feeling about this" decision to search for said traps. With that said, it is important to note that my traps are never designed to simply kill or injure the player. They are designed to impede thier progress with dire consequences involved. So, I argue that your DM sees a pit trap with a gelatinous cube as a means to get a player to fall into a gelatinous cube, whereas he should see it as a means to challenge the players into strategizing a way to clear and cross the room without triggering the trap. Similarly, it is in bad taste to throw a Bodak at a player without first setting a precedent for the creature's abilities. Now, one might find it personally reasonable to make that first will save the lesson learned from a Bodak, but I personally hate it as a player, and hate it as a DM to have a player simply die because a new experience killed him by luck alone. A Bodak's lair would be strewn with corpses whose eyes have seemed to be self-gouged in agony. An NPC may come to the players delerious and die in thier arms crying "the eyes!!! THE EYES!!!" The point is, they are given opputunity to deduce that something they may encounter may have a deadly gaze. And it is also a rule of thumb for me that instant death effects are never really instant death... it's like staring into the sun... it's so pretty, the sensation so alluring, and yet, for some reason common sense is slow to avert my eyes. I play a transitionatory moment whereby someone under the effect of an instant death spell, trap, or power can be 'rescued' or make an extroadinary attempt to listen to gut-instinct. ... I believe that "powergaming" is a throw-away term. So you want to optimize your character... that's kind of the point of the mechanics... otherwise there would be little need for so many rules. I think the problem is in your DM... his expectations are unrealistic for the players, and his attitude is too competitive. I feel that many DMs take the RAW so literally that they essentially turn players into lemmings. The game needs to be loose and free-flowing. When PCs enter a dungeon, they are going to be on thier toes, expecting the unexpected. A PC in a dungeon who fires an arrow blindly into an opening door is just being brash... he's not metagaming. We (my core group) assume that during dungeon crawls, the PCs are making small nuanced communication about situational awareness. If one PC can see hidden orcs or whatever, we assume that other PCs intuit their presence by noticing the change in body language and attention of the first PC. PCs are CONSTANTLY checking thier flank, scanning thier surroundings, and such. The only time such metagaming comes into bearing is when they are physically separated from each others presence, and that still doesn't stop us from OOCing suggestions on what other players might do. We're all playing a game, and we all want to cooperate towards the same ends. So, if one player keeps forgetting the full potential of his PC, it isn't metagaming to remind him OOC "Hey, your Cleric can turn the undead... it'd be a lot easier than fighting them all." Sigh... in the end, what I think you should do is just preface a friendly debate by offering the DM a change of perspective about these things. Good Luck. I'm on your side.
malignor 06-19-06, 06:57 PM	So.. you actually think it IS metagaming to point out to a player that they can do something different than what they were thinking of doing, such as "Hey you could move over here, still flank the monster for your +2 bonus and not trigger an attack"?? :confused: :eek:Speak In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action. You CAN give brief advice in combat, out of turn. Just don't say it in "squares" and such. Furthermore, if the groups gets all huffy about it, there's a strategic way to get a compromise... 1 - argue that the character in question (like the fireballing mage) should be trained to gauge distances and real world geometries for things like this. The character has training, information, knowledge and mental capacities beyond the player, and this should be accepted. Otherwise, there's no point in rolling mental stats at all, and only geniuses would be allowed to play wizards, and nobody could have higher mental stats & mental-based skill ranks (including charisma-based) than the player has. Thus it's likely that NOBODY could properly play a Wizard or Bard, ever. That's retarded. 2 - If they keep at it, suggest "okay, let him make a wisdom check of 15 to gauge the spatial judgement"... that'll seem more reasonable.
Sinaz 06-19-06, 07:14 PM	...What if Gollum and the Nazgul just gave up because thet knew the plot dictated that Frodo would cast The Ring into Mount Doom? What kind of movie would that be?... One that is very unfaithful to the book... sorry, interjecting versus a pet peave of mine... The Lord of the Rings is a series of books that is the basis for a series of movies... when referrencing intellectual property, it is appropriate to site the original source material unless you are commenting on something that is unique to the derivitive work or making comparisons. Since Frodo casts the ring into Mount Doom in both the books and the movies, you should be referring to the books. But I agree with your sentiments ;) ...and I hope I didn't ruin the ending of the book for anyone :P Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Viper3220 06-19-06, 07:52 PM	OOC I tell her "If your henchmen backed up you could move over there (i.e. where they are) and see the skeletons to turn them" and got jumped for metagaming. :confused: Underlined is WHY it's metagaming.... Now I see why you got jumped, noone knew the skeletons were there, but the DM put them on the map for simplicity sake/so he wouldn't forget they were there. Am I correct? Aha. Here's something that can help you become a better roleplayer. Spend time on your background and make it unique. Don't play "Legolus" or "Gumli" or "Hon Sulu" or any other popular characters as a character concept. You are correct, but it IS ok to BASE your character off of another character.
WayneTheGame 06-19-06, 07:55 PM	Underlined is WHY it's metagaming.... Now I see why you got jumped, noone knew the skeletons were there, but the DM put them on the map for simplicity sake/so he wouldn't forget they were there. Am I correct? Incorrect. We already saw the skeletons, but there was a fire blocking us from moving into the room from that corridor, so we had to backtrack and go to the opposite corridor that led into the same room. All of us were already aware of the encounter and simply moving to try and be able to enter the combat. I spoke to the player in question earlier.. she got upset because she doesn't like other people to do things for her; since she's a girl she's always had "the boys" make her characters for her and tell her what to do and all of that, when she wants to do it on her own.
psionichamster 06-19-06, 08:38 PM	first of all: Wayne, i commend you for both your intentions to become a better Roleplayer, and your mature and reasoned posts here. :pint: on topic: with the ex-military guy: if you can figure out what he's trying to say, ask him OOC if "do you mean there are 2 guys there or we 2 should go there?" after being asked to clarify every time he needlessy "shorthands" his communication, he'll get the idea. or you'll get to know exactly what he means. either way, meaningful communication ensues, you win. with the "go around the corner to turn them"...if you say it in such a manner as your Duskblade would do, in reference to the Paladin, (specifically NOT Susan, or Christa, or whatever the players name is), that's fine. Hell, that's great metagaming. and the Pally should know better than to NOT engage such undead filth without the power of her god. as to the "move 2 squares that way, then you can step up and not provoke an AoO". if that's the way you say it, then yes, you're metagaming. you're using "squares" and "Attack of Opportunity" as IC terms, when in reality its called "the floor" or "walking", and "getting whacked for walking into an enemy's reach. idiot." now, not all game terms are off limits, in my mind. things like spells, abilities, and such are intrisically part of the game world, and are fair for the player to use. unless you're an artificer (who knows precisely how much "life force" is in pretty much every magic item ever), you don't know about XP. (item-crafting wizards/clerics aside, but even THEY don't know necessarily about XP itself, just that SOMETHING must be spent to make them gloves o' dex...). similiarly, HP is something that really shouldn't be bandied about. you go down, the cleric heals you to standing, and you say "i'm 45hp down!, help!"...not so good as "#$@* I am most grievously wounded!" granted, this is the time for the healer to take the hint and zap you w/ his/her next to best healing spell available. why? cuz that best one should be to bring someone back who CAN'T say they need healing, and you definitely need to be patched up right quick. if there's downtime and you're patching people up w/ a wand of CLW, simply tallying up the HP as you're going and having the player of the wounded PC say when is good enough. as far as metagaming creature abilities, and suchlike. sure, losing a character sucks. but, that little pit of fear and apprehension when you think you just might? that hint of rage at the DM for so cruelly placing that monster who could Gaze-Attack/Cast Disintigrate/Shoot you full of arrows/Sneak-Death Attack you....that's what makes DnD FUN for me. if you're attached to your character, good. if you're having a strong emotional reaction during the game, good. that's what it's for, IMO. (similarly, imagine going to a very scary movie. Alien is a good example. The Marines have no idea of what's happening, and that is what is making the movie so tense and good. if you automatically know everything there is to know about the challenges, that aspect of surprise and fear go out the window, along with your immersion in the game) and that brings up another good point. Immerse yourself in the character, and you will immerse yourself in the game. although YOU can see the battlemat, with any minis or drawn-in features, YOUR character cannot see through doors, corners, into the dark (unless you can, of course) and the like. as a DM, i appreciate the pain-in-the-butt it is to slowly draw a map out for the use of minis, and generally draw in entire levels and rooms. my players know better than to act based on what their characters cannot see. using tools to assist you in this can make it seem more bearable. Know the sighting rules, vision rules, and Line-Of-Sight rules. know them perfectly and enforce them Draconically. hell, do this for ALL the rules, if it makes it more fun for you. there's been plenty of times when we made rules mistakes. but i usually go back and read through the PHB (or whatever the source was) and try to ensure i had done it correctly. if not, i announce the mistake, own up if it was my fault, and we move on, using the proper rule from now on. (classic example: we started using Eberron, with action points. at first, we thought they could be applied to ANY d20 roll, which led to many action point uses for Initiative roles. some weeks later, we discovered that was incorrect, and started using them properly.) and that brings me to my final point. the rules are there to ensure everyone has a "level playing field." that means that your rogue has the CHANCE to sneak up on my wizard without being spotted. it doesn't mean he is assured of success, though. that's what the dice are for. if you break the rules to assist your character (ie, assigning yourself extra-game knowledge, or bypassing a trapped door b/c you saw the map behind the screen, or specifically prepare an entirely different spell-load b/c you saw the adventure beforehand, or any number of other "assistances"), then you're cheating. and really, there's no reason to cheat at DnD. I should know, i have a mantra which states: "Cheat to Win." in other words, when it matters, do not allow anyone else dictate just HOW you can achieve victory. but w/ DnD, there's really no such thing as "winning." simple as that. so there's no point to cheating. so, in conclusion: *fear for character death/dismemberment is good. cheating to avoid it is bad. *immersion is good. immersion to the point where your fellow players cannot understand you is bad. *IC conversations are Essential. Advice, Tactics, Money-Lending, Religious Debates, these are all things you should discuss and possibly argue over. OOC conversations, with regards to the game, are at best neutral, and at worst completely inappropriate. (no, i am not going to heal you-IC-, you didn't wash the dishes last night-OOC) see how silly it is to get them mixed together. and finally: TALK TO YOUR FELLOW CHARACTERS IN GAME. simply put, a party that doesn't communicate is not a party. it is a collection of individuals who happen to go around and kill things together. when you talk IC during combat, you can get all your tactical advice out there (remembering to use IG terms, of course), call for tactical changes (hit the spellcaster, looks like he's getting ready to zap us!), and overall increase the fun of the game. if it gets REALLY crazy with people shouting METAGAME whenever you suggest something, simply b/c they didn't think of it themselves, take a level of Psion-Telepath, learn Mindlink, and bring them into your "fold." (or get some other way of thought-to-thought item. we had "rings of telepathy" in one game that allowed any of the wearers to communicate telapathically with any other w/in 1 mile. VERY handy item) hope this helps, and best wishes! namaste' the hamster
draco1119 06-19-06, 10:19 PM	I spoke to the player in question earlier.. she got upset because she doesn't like other people to do things for her; since she's a girl she's always had "the boys" make her characters for her and tell her what to do and all of that, when she wants to do it on her own. Whaddya know? I was right... :cool: Talk to her and let her know that you have no intention of telling her what to do with her character, you're just pointing out possible actions she could take. What she does is, ultimately, her choice. Leave it that way. ;)
SokenzanMarauder 06-20-06, 03:11 AM	Of all of the things mentioned only one irks me enough to post about it. Just one. The Bodak metagaming. I know that it has been thoroughly discussed but I wish to chime in on it. Players (not neccesarily you) with this mentality generally aren't welcome to game with me due to the fact that they're the ones (again, not neccesarily you) that go out and buy all the new books and memorize them cover to cover and use that info in-game. I don't care if you've got every 3.5 book in existance, I'd better not see any OOC knowledge unless it has been either mentioned in your characters background or a knowledge check has been made. Of course, I generally allow free knowledge(whatever) checks as soon as the creature is noticed and before combat to learn anything that needs to be known. Basically it comes down to the fact that it's unfair for those that just play, and as such only own the PHB and maybe a Complete book of their choosing compared to those that are "hardcore" and by ever suppliment available to them. *sigh* Sorry if it seems like I'm an ass I just had to vent and I mean no disrespect to you. Regards, -Gene