This may be the beginning of a philosophical debate on the nature of Dungeons & Dragons, one which I am sure has been covered before, but what is Dungeons & Dragons?
It's a game. It's a game of mechanics and numbers.
It's a story. It's a story cooperatively created by friends.
Which brings greater enjoyment? The mechanics? The story? This is based on the tastes of an individual player, is it not?
I abhor metagaming and its effect on a session.
But what does metagaming do? What is metagaming?
I would define it as thus: treating the game as a game. This can be done in many ways. For example, your party is faced with a task. A cursory glance at your character sheet and you see low numbers. Irrelevant of being true to the personal motivations of your character, the character would not even attempt it because of your decision based on the numerical values. Metagaming.
Utilizing knowledge you personally have which your character does not also falls into this category. For example, you have perused the Monster Manual and happened to have read details about the monster the Dungeon Master is coincidentally pitting against the party. Remembering it has threatening reach and without any kind of skill check, you keep your distance. Metagaming.
You are a bard and want to know if your ally needs healing. So, you ask them how much HP they have. Metagaming.
These are samples of the ways players can use the system to gain a favorable edge. But what are they sacrificing when they metagame in this way? A story becomes more palpable and promotes the "willing suspension of disbelief" the less crunch there is, in my opinion.
But how is a Dungeon Master to mitigate this behavior? Should there be repercussions for infringements?
With the hope of preventing players from deferring a task to the player with the greater numbers, this is a house rule I have used before:
"Looking at someone else's character sheet, asking someone else for any value on their character sheet, or telling others of values from your character sheet will cause permanent penalties to your character. This is done in hopes of reducing metagaming."
I understand this seems harsh, but if it were lighter, a slap on the wrist, would it be an effective deterrent?
There was also a time when I encouraged players not to share their die rolls with each other. Why would I do that? What purpose does that serve? Well, since I still needed players to annouce their totals, enterprising mathematicians could perform simple arithmetic to calculate values from someone else's character sheet such as skill bonuses or attak roll bonuses which may lead to the deference I just mentioned.
I know a certain amount of metagaming is unavoidable, and the more complex the power or ritual or situation, the harder it becomes to maintain the momentum of the story and its reality, but I would like to think, with like-minded people, this sort of gameplay could be achieved.
Overall, the ideal seamless story guided by mechanics which provide chance and luck is just that, an ideal. I realize to completely eliminate metagaming is nigh impossible. Knowing the rules inside and out really helps, cooperative players really helps, but mistakes are usually made, rules sometimes need improvising. Nothing is worse than a rules lawyer stopping a game to point out what they see as a poor or incorrent rules call.
What do you do to minimize metagaming, as a Player Character and as a Dungeon Master?
What do you do to minimize metagaming, as a Player Character and as a Dungeon Master?
Pretty much nothing, unless it really gets too blatant. Sure, you can share stats with other people, I'll assume it's confered in a logical way (that is, the player says "I have +8 diplomacy", the other players hear "I used to be a diplomat for King Whatshisface in the Realm of Somewheria") or that it's common knowledge (yeah, you know a troll dislikes being on fire, sure.)
Of course I'd prefer if they didn't do it too much, but I'm not going to waste our game time on exercises in futility.
If it gets too blatant, then I'll simply tell them "You don't know that. Act in character." and that's generally the end of it.
The only metagaming I discourage is abuse of the seperation of player and character knowledge. Everything else is fair game. I would go so far as to say meta-gaming sometimes makes the game better.
We are content with putting the game first and story second. Although not to the point it becomes irrelevant.
I tend to be vague when asked about numbers off my sheet (usually HP)
"I'm fine/bloodied" or "Oooow I think that's going to leave a mark, 5 HP left"
Or try to include some fluff on why/how they know that
"I look very strong, STR 20" or "You have never head me speak in a manner less than rude, diplomacy -1"
I would go to lengths to avoid taking advantage of information that I know my character does not have. But if I know my score is low (for example I know I'm bad at picking locks IRL), I'm pretty sure my character would know himself fairly well and act accordingly, despite his wishes.
Though there is a reason I packed that crowbar
So for me, I don't have a line. If a combination of feats and such makes you uber powerful, and that's what you want great. I'm playing a shaman where for him he technically has no actual power, its all from his spirit companion. So for the couple of non spirit powers that I have, my SC desummons and technically possesses my shaman to channel the power. Does limit me in some cases, so what.
Sometimes I play characters with self imposed limitations, sometimes I make a character and I'll look to see about ways to make it as powerful as I can manage while not going crazy, that's just how I am. So whatever, people play how they play whether they make a character, or just compile a collection of stats, items, powers, and feats that is supremely powerful.
I would define it as thus: treating the game as a game. This can be done in many ways. For example, your party is faced with a task. A cursory glance at your character sheet and you see low numbers. Irrelevant of being true to the personal motivations of your character, the character would not even attempt it because of your decision based on the numerical values. Metagaming.
I'm assuming here that your example refers to a character faced with a task he isn't good at. It isn't metagaming for the character to know he is bad at task. He SHOULD know. If he has an ally who he knows is better at the task, he will likely let the ally do it instead, or if not he will probably try to find another way to solve the task. If the player is acting out of character, however, this is not the fault of metagaming. This is the fault of the player not acting in character.
Utilizing knowledge you personally have which your character does not also falls into this category. For example, you have perused the Monster Manual and happened to have read details about the monster the Dungeon Master is coincidentally pitting against the party. Remembering it has threatening reach and without any kind of skill check, you keep your distance. Metagaming.
Can't argue with this one. Of course, you can always switch things up a bit. Maybe this variety has
LARGER threatening reach than most. That'll teach the player to make skill checks.
You are a bard and want to know if your ally needs healing. So, you ask them how much HP they have. Metagaming.
A character has knowledge of their HP, or at least their general condition. I find it perferctly reasonable for the Bard to ask, in character, if his ally needs assistance, and for the ally in question to respond, in character, if he does or not, the player adding in how much HP he has left OOC.
But how is a Dungeon Master to mitigate this behavior? Should there be repercussions for infringements?
Seriously, you're acting as if treating the game as a game is some sort of crime. You need to chill. I like to roleplay, but I never forget it's a game. However, that knowledge never seemed to harm my enjoyment of roleplaying my character. It's really odd to me how you seem to be unable to roleplay if anyone mentions a number.
With the hope of preventing players from deferring a task to the player with the greater numbers, this is a house rule I have used before:
Wouldn't it, in most cases, be logical for the characters to decide to themselves that the one to undertake a task be the one best suited for that task? Isn't one of the main points of an adventuring party to bolster your weaknesses with your ally's strengths?
"Looking at someone else's character sheet, asking someone else for any value on their character sheet, or telling others of values from your character sheet will cause permanent penalties to your character. This is done in hopes of reducing metagaming."
I understand this seems harsh, but if it were lighter, a slap on the wrist, would it be an effective deterrent?
Jesus Christ.
That's absolutly ridiculous and mean spirited. I don't know you, and have no idea what your games are like but... just from this, and the grave way you talk throughout your post, I'm going to make a judgement call and peg you as the kind of DM I would hate to play under. This is EXTREMELY heavy handed for such a minor "offense". It's a game. There are numbers involved, and every player knows it. This rule acts as if the game is so... serious, that people need to be "punished", when the game is just supposed to be a fun opportunity to roll dice and roleplay.
Metagaming is only an issue for those who don't care about anything but having a super powerful character for the sole purpose of "winning". Who cares if you know how much HP an ally has?Does this honestly grind the fun or roleplaying to a standstill? This is absolutly too harsh, and IMO, missing the point of the game.
That doesn't cut. It's hard enough to get together. When we do, time is precious. Therefore I put a stop to that sort of thing right away. Weighing one piece of gear over another is important. But any detailed analysis needs to be done outside the game.
The only other problem I have with metagaming is player knowledge versus character knowledge. That is much easier to deal with. A simple reminder that their character wouldn't have that information is all its ever taken.
When I gave the example of seeing low numbers and thus not attempting a given task, I suppose it should say lower numbers. This implies a comparison; a comparison between what? Between the numbers of two characters.
The question I am poking at here is would your character really stand around and watch or would they do it themselves or would they help? This is a great question. It taps into personality, motivation, relationships between characters.
- 3E's developers.
Were I a player in your campaign, and you spun a good yarn, I would have no problems with your proposals. However, my personal preference would be to lighten up. What you call metagaming, I call player shorthand for not possibly being able to completely experience everything that their character experiences.
For example, your party is faced with a task. A cursory glance at your character sheet and you see low numbers. Irrelevant of being true to the personal motivations of your character, the character would not even attempt it because of your decision based on the numerical values. Seeing low numbers is also called your character knowing what thier limitations are. In real life, there are lots of things I don't even attempt because I know I am insufficiently skilled at the task. That is exactly what low numbers represent.
For example, you have perused the Monster Manual and happened to have read details about the monster the Dungeon Master is coincidentally pitting against the party. Remembering it has threatening reach and without any kind of skill check, you keep your distance.
In real life, my friends and I have spent our entire lives talking about football teams and their various strengths and weaknesses. In a world where monsters exist, folks will spend their entire lives telling stories about monsters' various strengths and weaknesses.
You are a bard and want to know if your ally needs healing. So, you ask them how much HP they have. This is nothing but shorthand for physically and intuitively seeing if the ally needs help.
There was also a time when I encouraged players not to share their die rolls with each other. Why would I do that? What purpose does that serve? Well, since I still needed players to annouce their totals, enterprising mathematicians could perform simple arithmetic to calculate values from someone else's character sheet such as skill bonuses or attak roll bonuses which may lead to the deference I just mentioned. Characters should be able to judge how skilled a combatant their opponents are in relatively short order while in combat with them. Figuring out the opponents attack bonus or AC is how the player interprets it; the character interprets it as the opponent's combat efficacy.
What do you do to minimize metagaming, as a Player Character and as a Dungeon Master? Have never worried about it. My group has always slipped between roleplay and rollplay as felt right at the moment. Mayhaps your group is different. I hope they like your methods.
It's when the author uses that knowledge to make things less interesting that there's a problem. Short circuiting the drama, sidestepping an interesting challenge, etc.,.
It's about how you do it.
Were I a player in your campaign, and you spun a good yarn, I would have no problems with your proposals.
Thanks. That may be the first positive or supportive reply in this thread.
Seeing low numbers is also called your character knowing what thier limitations are. In real life, there are lots of things I don't even attempt because I know I am insufficiently skilled at the task. That is exactly what low numbers represent.
Being bad at something doesn't stop some people from attempting things. i.e. daredevil, open-minded, or peer pressure. Your response to lower numbers is fine if that reflects your characters personality and any impetuses. That's all I'm saying.
In real life, my friends and I have spent our entire lives talking about football teams and their various strengths and weaknesses. In a world where monsters exist, folks will spend their entire lives telling stories about monsters' various strengths and weaknesses.
And an appropriate skill check is just what the doctor ordered to see if you remember. If a particular monster is very iconic in your character's background, or the culture they grew up in, I would probably grant an additional bonus to the skill check.
This is nothing but shorthand for physically and intuitively seeing if the ally needs help.
To continue the vernacular, I suppose I am hoping for longhand, then. A player paying attention to my narration, and if the wounded character roleplays it, you could tell if their situation was dire without numbers being involved. This is more of an ideal synergy among the group than reality, sadly.
Characters should be able to judge how skilled a combatant their opponents are in relatively short order while in combat with them.
I agree with you here. They should be able to judge their allies, too.
Figuring out the opponents attack bonus or AC is how the player interprets it; the character interprets it as the opponent's combat efficacy.
But not with you here. The inevitably announced total of an attack roll, skill check, or damage roll and my resultant narration should be a good indicator without knowing anything like the base attack bonus or skill bonus or the target's defenses. Before we begin combat, I always collect everyone's character sheets and update any changes to their defenses on my reference sheet, too. This keeps me from asking "what's your {insert defense here}?" a bajillion times.
Have never worried about it. My group has always slipped between roleplay and rollplay as felt right at the moment. Mayhaps your group is different. I hope they like your methods.
From what I have read here from everyone posting in this thread, I can see now I have a different vision than most. I wonder if the majority of 4th Edition players out there feel the same way the majority of posters here do.
@ FrozenWastes The Dungeon Master and Player Characters are cooperatively authoring a story together, but treating your character as a character in the story and not becoming your character I feel defeats the purpose of role-playing.
@ FrozenWastes The Dungeon Master and Player Characters are cooperatively authoring a story together, but treating your character as a character in the story and not becoming your character I feel defeats the purpose of role-playing.
Might I suggest that what you think is the purpose of role-playing might not be an absolute and that your definition of role-playing may be too narrow?
Not everyone enjoys immersion in their character. Some are more interested in immersion into the plot, or immersion into the dramatic tension, or immersion into the moral quandaries the characters might face. For anyone interested in those, demanding they never use OOC knowledge to set those situations up defeats their purpose for role-playing.
Which is fine, if that's all your group consists of, but it's definately not the standard.
See also, the first chapter on the DMG, and the difference between an Actor, a Storyteller, a Slayer and a Powergamer, all of which are part of the D&D expected audience. You are catering only to the Actors, basically.
Which is fine, if that's all your group consists of, but it's definately not the standard.
Exactly.
Actor - immerse in character
Storyteller - immerse in plot
Slayer - immerse in violence
Powergamer - immerse in system
This "meta gaming is always bad" stuff that pops up here on the forums is basically an expression of only seeing the Actor method as what the game is about.
Sorry guys, but there's no "ONE TRUE WAY".
However, plot, tension, and the like are aspects of movies and novels and other forms of entertainment, too. What sets roleplaying games apart is the chance for the audience to interact with these elements and even determine the ultimate outcome. It's much like playing a video game, but there are vastly more options, and there are no invisible walls which stop you from leaving town in a certain direction or from falling off the edge of a precipice. Townsfolk can have a lot more to say. So on and so forth.
@Pluisjen I've read that part of the Dungeon Master's Guide; it does recommend to tailor the game to the tastes of your players, you're right. But let's say we remove all roleplaying and simply run combat as numbers and mechanics: forced movements, action types, damage types, conditions, etc. That sounds more like a boardgame to me and not a roleplaying game. I am not saying I want to eliminate those things, they are what make combat possible. Yet, combat with meaning and aesthetics seems much more in the spirit of the game than just rolling dice and moving miniatures.
That one is better then the other is simply your opinion. As long as your group agrees, great. But there are plenty of groups who don't roleplay, and I certainly don't consider enjoying the plot of a story essential, my group contains players who don't care much about the plot, which is fine if they don't make a scene. I cater to them by having the occasional random battle so they can flex their mental muscle and beat **** up.
The only thing essential is that everybody at the table has fun. How you go about it, matters little.
Enjoying the plot, its tension, and other aspects of a story are essential.
That's just more "one true way" talk. They're not essential. Some players don't care about the plot. Some don't want tension, only resolution or victory. Others just want to exercise system mastery. Some just want cinematic violence.
Squashing anything that even looks like metagaming to you can ruin the fun of others. A story teller type player wants the plot to go forward, so she has her character go somewhere where she knows he will learn an important piece of information. You might cry foul and accuse the player of dastardly metagaming. But you'd be wrong to do so. The player is simply acting in the best interest of what she enjoys. And if fudging a bit with out of character knowledge helps make that happen, what a small price to pay. Main characters in all sorts of stories happen to be in the right place at the right time to learn something and she's just doing the same thing. You know, as a storyteller focused player.
The idea of a player using out of character knowledge to position their character might seem anathema to you, but if it does, it's probably just a sign that you're decidedly in the actor mode of play rather than having figured out the "one true way."
Metagaming isn't the universal evil of bad role playing. It can be very, very good. It's all about your goals as participants in the game and how it's executed.
@ Shisgokken
Thanks. That may be the first positive or supportive reply in this thread. Yeah, there is a bit of hilarious irony in folks saying that there is no one true way and at the same time bash you for having your way.
Being bad at something doesn't stop some people from attempting things. i.e. daredevil, open-minded, or peer pressure. Your response to lower numbers is fine if that reflects your characters personality and any impetuses. That's all I'm saying. Motivation and personality is absolutely a factor in a person determining whether they attempts actions of which they know they are not proficient.
And an appropriate skill check is just what the doctor ordered to see if you remember. If a particular monster is very iconic in your character's background, or the culture they grew up in, I would probably grant an additional bonus to the skill check. The problem as I see it comes in knowing whether or not a particular monster is iconic in a character's background. It is absolutely impossible for a player to brainstorm every event that occurred in a character's background. Not to mention, I really think that if monsters really did exist, people would spend a whole lot more time discussing them over drinks and dinner than skill checks represent. It would be fodder for daily conversation in the exact same manner that sports are in our world.
To continue the vernacular, I suppose I am hoping for longhand, then. A player paying attention to my narration, and if the wounded character roleplays it, you could tell if their situation was dire without numbers being involved. This is more of an ideal synergy among the group than reality, sadly. In all candor, my group is much more likely to say, "I have half a dozen cuts oozing a pool of blood around my feet and am falling back under the horrendous onslaught" than they are to say, "I have 10 hit points left." So, I concede that I am being disingenious in that I typically already have what you are striving for.
But not with you here. The inevitably announced total of an attack roll, skill check, or damage roll and my resultant narration should be a good indicator without knowing anything like the base attack bonus or skill bonus or the target's defenses. This will hinge a lot on your narrative skills. Say the fighter is combatting two opponents - one skilled and one piss-ant. Both miss. The trained fighter should still be able to determine which is the better opponent, and it will be up to the player interpreting your narrative skills correctly.
Before we begin combat, I always collect everyone's character sheets and update any changes to their defenses on my reference sheet, too. This keeps me from asking "what's your {insert defense here}?" a bajillion times. I spent many years doing exactly that. Then I got old and lazy.
From what I have read here from everyone posting in this thread, I can see now I have a different vision than most. I wonder if the majority of 4th Edition players out there feel the same way the majority of posters here do. I actually think that any previous edition will be more conducive to the style of play of which you are describing. 4E is sooooo stinking crunchy it is very hard to separate from the narration. For instance, I wouldn't even want to think about attempting 4E without the artificiality of a battlemat and miniatures.
You haven't let us know what your players think about this style of play. Their input will be crucial. Good gaming.
@ Shisgokken
Thanks. That may be the first positive or supportive reply in this thread. Yeah, there is a bit of hilarious irony in folks saying that there is no one true way and at the same time bash you for having your way.
That isn't what's being said. If people are all into the actor thing and want to crush meta-gaming at every opportunity, then awesome. Have at it.
But this thread, and the many, many like it always start with the assumption that metagaming is bad and that actor play is the One True Way(tm). The OP is even advocating punishments for anything he perceives as metagaming.
The ironic thing there is that the penalties are in-character penalties. For out of character behaviour. LOL.
That isn't what's being said. If people are all into the actor thing and want to crush meta-gaming at every opportunity, then awesome. Have at it.
But this thread, and the many, many like it always start with the assumption that metagaming is bad and that actor play is the One True Way(tm). The OP is even advocating punishments for anything he perceives as metagaming.
The ironic thing there is that the penalties are in-character penalties. For out of character behaviour. LOL.
I certainly misinterpret all of the time. However, what I am hearing is that every campaign must cater to multiple play styles. Hard for me to swallow that folks cannot jimmy around with different play styles from time to time. I see little harm in attempting to run a campaign heavily steeped against the metagame. As long as the players and DM are mature, the worst I can see happening is the group deciding they don't like playing like that. At best, everyone loves it and a new era of gaming is ushered into the group.
As an analogy, I am reminded of back in the heady days of 2E when the books vigorously opposed playing evil characters. I went against such advice and ran an evil campaign where the players were horrible, despicable villains slaughtering villages and sacrificing babies. The players loved it. I grew to hate it. One day I told them that I didn't want to play that way anymore, ran the last session of the campaign that night, and we went back to heroic campaigns. We were all mature about it and nobody threw a hissy-hissy. I fail to see the harm in trying something different.
The thing about the OP's house rule is that it's designed to force people to confirm rather than asking them to buy in. If I need to say "stop meta gaming or I'll give you a -1 to hit!" then something is wrong at the social level. The players are obviously not agreeing with the DM if such punishments are needed.
I'm all for the DM going, "Hey guys, let's try it this way." But the OP's rules are more about forcing it that way through punishment and squashing information exchanges he finds unpalatable.
I don't believe there is one true way to play. I never said so. There have been many assumptions and inferences. In fact, I am all for preserving playstyles and supporting a player's decisions. I have another house rule which goes like this:
"Let others play their characters the way they like or your character will suffer permanent penalties."
So, I guess in retrospect, there is one playstyle I dislike: being bossy. (This rule actually came about because I used to be part of a group where one of our players always had a suggestion about what you should do in a rather forceful way.)
I had my wife read the thread up to my previous post and asked her opinion. She said I expect a lot out of my players. This must be true; I expect a lot out of myself.
I see now some people see Dungeons & Dragons as a boardgame or a kind of competition, but when I sit down to play a roleplaying game, I hope there is a good amount of roleplaying involved. Otherwise, I would bust out a real boardgame or play Munchkin.
I don't think it's too much to ask my players to keep their character sheets to themselves, and my rule on applying penalties to characters for players sharing mechanics about their characters seems most appropriate seeing how it is the players who would share who would want this to happen least.
Is it wrong to be authoritative as a Dungeon Master? I very much dislike the colloquialism which my group tells me pertains to pre-4th Edition DMs: "The DM is god." or "Rule #1: The DM is always right. Rule#2: If the DM is wrong, see Rule #1." I want more of a cooperative air than that while still remaining on track, you know?
@FrozenWastes I am all for your suggestions about how to get players to "buy in" to not metagaming without resorting to penalties. What have you got for me?
@FrozenWastes I am all for your suggestions about how to get players to "buy in" to not metagaming without resorting to penalties. What have you got for me?
Good question.
Step 1: Talk to them. Find out if they are interested in being as ardent about it as you are. You may just be barking up the wrong tree. If they are willing to give it an honest go, getting a verbal commitment will probably go a long way compared to a punishment model. For me, I'd say no as I'm totally not into heavy immersion actor stuff, I like big picture plot and moral quandaries and those things are easier to get my hands on when I can make decisions about my character using more than what my character knows.
As for sharing sheet information, I'd encourage players to start asking things in story terms. If someone says "how many HP do you have left" stop them and say "You mean to ask how hurt the guy looks right?" And when they say yes, you can either describe it or ask the player of that character to describe their current state. I like how the stats give rapid information in combat, so I wouldn't really like this one either, but it would work. Literally stopping play and having it resolved in the "right way" for how everyone agreed to play (see item 1) will send a pretty clear signal that it's important.
One thing a lot of pro-actor DMs that I've played with do is not allow anyone to address another player out of character at all. And they have to use their character's name. This one can really jar people who aren't used to it. I can't stand it myself. My least favorite thing in the world is being stuck in actor stance and having to dialogue my way through something I don't care about or I feel is immaterial to what's important to my character. For example, going shopping for gear before descending into the dungeon. Imagine having 5 separate scenes where people have dialogues with various shop keeps and the like. Ugh. So I'd recommend being willing to skip what is unimportant if you are asking all players to never break character.
To be perfectly honest, pure actor play isn't the easiest thing to pull off in 4E. The combat system is written with the idea that somehow every creature involved somehow knows the exact nature of the effects it is suffering. Every creature somehow knows when another is at half hit points. That sort of thing. Meta knowledge is really built right into the system, so you're kind of fighting up hill by trying to house rule it away.
Scene framing. That might be key. And I mean hard scene framing. Instead of having a stream of consciousness travel log where you follow what each and every character does every second, simply set the scene. Describe where the PCs are, who's there, what's their surroundings and the like. So they don't have to muddle in character through the useless stuff that doesn't matter. If they decide to talk to a member of the local theives guild, you don't have to spend half an hour having them ask beggers and peasants who's "connected" in the town. You can say they figured out who to talk to and frame the scene where they are sitting at a private table at the local tavern talking to the guy. This will also cut down on the players trying to figure out whether or not they have a good enough streetwise skill and try to pass it off on another player.
Fail forward. If you're going to mandate that players with sub-optimal skill levels attempt things they are likely to fail because it fits your idea of what their character would do (think about that) then don't make failure binary. Maybe a failed streetwise check doesn't simply mean they don't find anything useful. Maybe they still end up at the meeting at the tavern, but the criminal outfit has gotten word that they're nosing about and has come in force. Or is using the meeting to get them all in one place while they do something against the party in another place. Or pull a big heist or something. Failure at a skill should never grind things to a halt. And if you're not going to let the party work together so they can put their best foot forward, this is especially important.
I'm amazed that some people insist on in-character discussion in the middle of combat using a system as abstract as D&D's. I love good role-playing, but not when it interferes with the game being played.
Step 1: Talk to them. Find out if they are interested in being as ardent about it as you are. You may just be barking up the wrong tree. If they are willing to give it an honest go, getting a verbal commitment will probably go a long way compared to a punishment model. For me, I'd say no as I'm totally not into heavy immersion actor stuff, I like big picture plot and moral quandaries and those things are easier to get my hands on when I can make decisions about my character using more than what my character knows.
This is great advice, and it's so simple. The problem I face is having everyone feel this way or risk alienating one or two players. Three of my five players I suspect support the idea, but the other two I have my doubts.
As for sharing sheet information, I'd encourage players to start asking things in story terms. If someone says "how many HP do you have left" stop them and say "You mean to ask how hurt the guy looks right?" And when they say yes, you can either describe it or ask the player of that character to describe their current state. I like how the stats give rapid information in combat, so I wouldn't really like this one either, but it would work. Literally stopping play and having it resolved in the "right way" for how everyone agreed to play (see item 1) will send a pretty clear signal that it's important.
I 100% agree with you here. This is a good example of how I think thing's could go and preserve the "willing suspension of disbelief", I just hadn't spelled it out like you did.
One thing a lot of pro-actor DMs that I've played with do is not allow anyone to address another player out of character at all. And they have to use their character's name. This one can really jar people who aren't used to it. I can't stand it myself. My least favorite thing in the world is being stuck in actor stance and having to dialogue my way through something I don't care about or I feel is immaterial to what's important to my character. For example, going shopping for gear before descending into the dungeon. Imagine having 5 separate scenes where people have dialogues with various shop keeps and the like. Ugh. So I'd recommend being willing to skip what is unimportant if you are asking all players to never break character.
I am okay with joking around at the table, chatting, gossiping, quoting movies. But when you speak in character, you should be in character.
It's funny you should mention using the character names when addressing others. The one pure actor in my group can't ever remember his allies' names. >.< It has become an aspect of that character now: forgetfulness.
As for skipping the boring stuff, the Dungeon Master's Guide says the same thing. I agree. Just because I want people in character and thinking about character motivation and the like, doesn't mean I needlessly force people through roleplaying bathing, brushing teeth, combing hair, and so on.
To be perfectly honest, pure actor play isn't the easiest thing to pull off in 4E. The combat system is written with the idea that somehow every creature involved somehow knows the exact nature of the effects it is suffering. Every creature somehow knows when another is at half hit points. That sort of thing. Meta knowledge is really built right into the system, so you're kind of fighting up hill by trying to house rule it away.
I am right there with you. I have another house rule which goes:
"There is a certain amount of metagaming which is unavoidable in combat. Outside of combat, please do not metagame."
Scene framing. That might be key. And I mean hard scene framing. Instead of having a stream of consciousness travel log where you follow what each and every character does every second, simply set the scene. Describe where the PCs are, who's there, what's their surroundings and the like. So they don't have to muddle in character through the useless stuff that doesn't matter. If they decide to talk to a member of the local theives guild, you don't have to spend half an hour having them ask beggers and peasants who's "connected" in the town. You can say they figured out who to talk to and frame the scene where they are sitting at a private table at the local tavern talking to the guy. This will also cut down on the players trying to figure out whether or not they have a good enough streetwise skill and try to pass it off on another player.
I try my best to describe what the characters see, hear, smell, feel, and taste so they can make appropriate decisions and actions.
Fail forward. If you're going to mandate that players with sub-optimal skill levels attempt things they are likely to fail because it fits your idea of what their character would do (think about that) then don't make failure binary. Maybe a failed streetwise check doesn't simply mean they don't find anything useful. Maybe they still end up at the meeting at the tavern, but the criminal outfit has gotten word that they're nosing about and has come in force. Or is using the meeting to get them all in one place while they do something against the party in another place. Or pull a big heist or something. Failure at a skill should never grind things to a halt. And if you're not going to let the party work together so they can put their best foot forward, this is especially important.
I do this. Dungeon Master's Guide 2 calls it "stages of failure", but as an optimist I prefer "stages of success". A failure just means the characters head down a different branch as a result of their actions, not that the adventure comes to a hault.
For example, the characters are hunting down a notorious mage to ask him some questions about his involvement with a cult they just dispatched. They are able to squeeze the location of the mage's laboratory from the cult leader before he died of his wounds, but when they arrive they find a magical portal as the only access to the inner recesses of the compound. Should they fail (according to the numbers) to bypass it, shut it down, disrupt it, whatever they try, this doesn't mean they are stopped there in front of the door, but instead they make it through and something negative occurs based on how poorly they performed. i.e. they each lose a healing surge from the magic of the portal erupting, they trigger an alarm which forewarns the mage of their coming, and so on.
I see now some people see Dungeons & Dragons as a boardgame or a kind of competition, but when I sit down to play a roleplaying game, I hope there is a good amount of roleplaying involved. Otherwise, I would bust out a real boardgame or play Munchkin.
Yeah, those strawmen are just a piece of work, aren't they?
I really don't want to sound confrontational, but, NEWSFLASH: You're totally misenterpreting peoples arguements to make them look worse, and that's not a good thing. I personally roleplay greatly when I play D&D. However, I don't have this same "IF YOU SEE ANY NUMBERS YOU GET A PENALTY, METAGAME MUNCHKIN SCUM!" attitude that you to. I have the ability to roleplay even if I personally have knowledge that my character doesn't. It really doesn't impact my roleplaying, and sometimes improves it, such as being able to determine when my allies are wounded by knowing their HP. My character doesn't have an exact number, they can't see a little counter over their head, but I can use that knowledge to say "Balthesar, you look injured! Allow me to tend to you!"
Bottom line, I know it's a game, and I play it like a game, but you know what? That doesn't stop me from roleplaying. I don't treat the game like a boardgame, but I don't freak out when a player knows another characters HP. I don't give permenent penalties just because the players have a rough understanding of the abilities each character has. It seems difficult for you to understand that people can do both.
Also, I would like to point out I am being level-headed, not typing sentences in all caps (shouting), and not insulting anyone, at least not intentionally. If you feel offended because your playstyle conflicts with the topic of reducing metagaming, I don't know what to say. Don't post here?
I didn't start this thread to debate whether metagaming is appropriate or not, but how to lessen its use among a group (though I suspected this might happen).
I think I covered my bases when I said in my original post, "Which brings greater enjoyment? The mechanics? The story? This is based on the tastes of an individual player, is it not?"
I would also like to take this time to say, it has been mentioned to me by many people on many occasions the way I write is direct and is easily misinterpreted. So, if you have doubts on whether I am verbally attacking anyone, rest assured I mean everything in the best possible light.
Be careful of applying unintentional connotation.
I don't understand. What are strawmen? Like a scarecrow?
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The game tailors both to people who want to roleplay and people who want to play a very tactical boardgame.
@Rustmonster Though it's difficult to widdle down your meaning and say you are implying something, I'll go out on a limb here and say you are accusing me of using a "straw man". I believe you are referring to my line "I see now some people see Dungeons & Dragons as a boardgame . . . " As you can see I am continuing the vernacular from an earlier post. Also, I am not painting anyone in any light. It is only by presenting your thoughts here and the manner in which you do so do you color yourself.
Is it ironic you say I am using a "straw man" when it is you misrepresenting me, or "using a straw man", when you apply your spin on how you see me?
"IF YOU SEE ANY NUMBERS YOU GET A PENALTY, METAGAME MUNCHKIN SCUM!"
Also, I agree with your following sentiment.
I have the ability to roleplay even if I personally have knowledge that my character doesn't. It really doesn't impact my roleplaying, and sometimes improves it, such as being able to determine when my allies are wounded by knowing their HP. My character doesn't have an exact number, they can't see a little counter over their head, but I can use that knowledge to say "Balthesar, you look injured! Allow me to tend to you!"
If you can roleplay your assistance to them, what is stopping them from roleplaying their need of assistance? A little description, character dialogue, or character action can go a long way. I suppose then it is okay for players to know each others numbers, as long as they don't say them. On the other hand, if you don't know the number, it's impossible to use them, neh? Sort of like removing temptation.
This is great advice, and it's so simple. The problem I face is having everyone feel this way or risk alienating one or two players. Three of my five players I suspect support the idea, but the other two I have my doubts.
So you basically have to ask them to try it.
Scene framing. That might be key.
I try my best to describe what the characters see, hear, smell, feel, and taste so they can make appropriate decisions and actions.
No, I'm talking about actually framing the scene. Like the way a director for a movie or play does. You describe which characters are present, where they are *and* what the scene is about. And you frame the action right into the scene. You frame past all the stuff that everyone already knows or needs to know. You don't ask "what are you doing," but describe them doing what they said they wanted to do even before the scene. You can call for a skill check and base the opening of the next scene on how successful it was. Say you're having a scene where a PC is walking around asking about the theives' guild using streetwise. Based on his die roll, the next scene is someone slipping a bag over his head and hauling him off to a secret location to "talk" about why he's looking for them so blatantly.
And you don't just let one flow into another based on just following along with what happens next like in a travel log. You identify what matters next and you skip right to it.
Some good scene framing threads:
story-games.com/forums/comments.php?Disc...
story-games.com/forums/comments.php?Disc...