Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Kigan Mar 25, 2012 16:55:14	So, in the "What's a DM to do?" section, someone asked how to give good hooks to motivate players, and the topic is on the road to get sidetracked to a discussion on the pros and cons of metagaming. Now I'll admit I have a responsabilitie in the sidetracking of the post, but since the new conversation seemed interesting, I'm starting a post here to continue it without further disturbing the original post. If you want to read the original post, here it is: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... The off-topicness started on the fourth page with tubaman's replie which I answered on the fifth page, and it goes to hell from there. Well, it only goes to hell in the sense that that was not what the post was about, but as I said, it was an interesting topic, so here I am starting it anew. To resume: In a game I played in, I missed a seesion in which a new player joined our group. The next session, the new player's character was about to be hanged for mureders. My PC new that he indeed did commit the murders, but having missed the previous session, my character had no way of knowing he was justified (somewhat...) for the kills. The other players did not tell me about the reasons behind the murders. So when the DM asked me what I wanted to do about the hanging, I said: "Nothing, I'll just go on with my original mission!" In my opinion, trying to save him would have been meta-gaming, since my character (chaotic good) would have based this on player knowledge (that it was not just "some dude" being hanged, but an actual PC), and that made it a no-bo in my book. The argument made against me by Centauri (but I must point out, in a respectfull way), was that I should have allowed for some meta-gaming to improve my out-of-game friend's chances of survival. In his opinion, I took the "no meta-gaming" rule to an extreme, and it was bad for the play, I should have laid off and be less strict. He even implied that by forcing myself not to meta-game, I was meta-gaming... if I understand what he meant. Since I'm inviting him to continue the discussion here, I'll be quoting him and anwering him right here, but I'm interested in all your opinions: How strict are you with Meta-Gaming, did I take it too far in your opinion? Why? Or why not? 56799758 wrote:
#2 salla Mar 25, 2012 16:59:40	Metagaming is only bad when it interferes with the fun at the table.  The tendency for PCs to be inclined to trust one another, even when the reasons seem flaky, is not 'bad metagaming' because it facilitates game play.  Otherwise you wind up in games I've seen where every PC goes to the tavern and sits alone with their back to a different wall and nothing happens.
#3 Centauri Mar 25, 2012 18:25:19	In a game I played in, I missed a seesion in which a new player joined our group. The next session, the new player's character was about to be hanged for mureders. My PC new that he indeed did commit the murders, but having missed the previous session, my character had no way of knowing he was justified (somewhat...) for the kills. I don't think that's strictly true. I think there are ways that information could have come to the character's attention. If the DM wanted your character to have that information, a way would have been found. The other players did not tell me about the reasons behind the murders. I wonder why not. That depends on the gaming style. The dm was not trying to punish the player, she was trying to punish the character for killing three paysants in the middle of a village... she was only trying to kee up realism... There's more than one way to keep up realism. Well yeah, but when you break in someone's house, kill three of the people there and fail to escape the angry mob of villagers, based on a normal medieval / fantastic setting... I fail to see a lot more options... It's a fantasy setting, so that automatically paves the way for a vast number of alternate approaches. It's clear that the DM wanted this outcome. As you mentioned in the other thread, he or she eventually spared the character, so perhaps the DM simply wanted some drama. The fact remains that the situation could have gone down very differently. The DM didn't need to create a mob, for instance. And my character DID know about the hanging, he simply did not care. In fact, if the other players would have tried to stop the hanging WITHOUT giving me good reasons, I would have tried to stop them. I was a good aligned character after all, and helping out known murederers for no good reasons is a big no-no!! You'd've been helping out your party member, whose actions may have been (and in fact were) justified. Even a lawful character might double check to make sure the hanging was lawful. But he was NOT a party member. My character was not there when he joined the group, That fact was not clear to me. I arrive in a village to see a random dude getting hanged for three murders... That I know he commited... The only way for me to see him as a "party member" was for me AS A PLAYER to look to my left and see the other PLAYER and think, "Oh, this is the guys who plays the murderer..." Meta much?? Yes. But as Salla mentions, it's quite common for players to metagame the fact that their characters have a reason to get along and work together. It all comes down to the fact that you agreed to sit at a table together, but how you imagine the reasons to get along, or even what the relationships are like, are up to you. All in all, it doesn't sound like this particular case was badly handled. No hurt feeling or anything, as far as I can tell. I simply take issue with the idea the absolutes being used, because I see those a lot in situations in which feelings are hurt. The character didn't need be hanged, there were ways for your character to know more information, and there were plausible reasons to the players stop the hanging. Your table didn't want to create or declare them; fine. It worked out. But if it ever does come to a situation where the game or relationships will be damaged, or even if the game would just become boring then I hope you wouldn't cling to metagaming simply for its own sake. As for the murders being justified, I had no clue leaning to the fact that they were and I am not about to make him a militant against death penalty, just because the hanged guy happened to be a PC. It wouldn't need to be anything that drastic. What if someone who knew the character (again, I'm not sure where the other PCs were in all this) came forth and implored you to investigate the charges, swearing to you that there was no way he could be guilty? My friend would not have wanted me to save him for metagaming reasons, like all of us at the table, he would have prefered to roll up a new character than resort to metagaming. Metagaming is not always bad. You engaged in just as much metagaming to allow the hanging as to prevent it. There was metagame thinking about was was plausible for your character to know or find out about the hanging, and it would have been metagaming to restrict oneself from preventing the hanging based entirely on alignment. I fell to see how I engaged in metagaming by refusing to act differently towards a PC I never met than I would have towards an NPC I never met. I'm sorry, I just can't see it. I'm not sure, but I get the impression that you are bending over backwards (or would consider bending over backwards) to avoid metagaming and that is metagaming. You're using player knowledge about metagaming to keep your character from metagaming. If you were interested in seeing how the hanging played out without PC interference, or how the DM dealt with it, and that influenced your decision to get your character involved or not, that's also metagaming. Again, I'm not sure that's going on, but it's the impression I get. Metagaming is only bad when it interferes with the fun at the table.  The tendency for PCs to be inclined to trust one another, even when the reasons seem flaky, is not 'bad metagaming' because it facilitates game play.  Otherwise you wind up in games I've seen where every PC goes to the tavern and sits alone with their back to a different wall and nothing happens. Right. When metagaming is used as an excuse not to do something it's bad. I'm not sure that's happening here, but I think it could very easily become that.
#4 Kigan Mar 25, 2012 21:35:23	Ah!! It's nice to have those kind of conversation on a forum and stay polite, thanks guys (and / or gals) As for metagaming to give a reason to join together, I agree, but only to a point. It's one thing when during the first session, you accept that three random people will go on the hunt for the children slaver's raiding the village these pas few months, that, I can live with. But in the situation I described? I'm not sure. Most of the alternate solutions you gave, Centauri, were in the DM's hands, not mine. Such as not creating a mob in the first place, having a NPC come to me and beg me to investigate, etc.. Or in the other PCs. While the other PCs could have acted a bit more to get me to save this guy, they did not for unknown reasons to me. But I'm not talking about that, I'm tlaking about, with what MY character knew of the situation, I think that my reaction was correct. As for realism, I personnaly do not want to have the feeling that's it's alright to walk into a village, kill a few villagers and not have any repercussion. But that's our gaming group, we like those kind of sessions. I'm not saying saving him would have been all that bad, if your group prefers this kind of game, well then by all means, play that way! But I don't mean to be obstuse here, but I still don't see how I was meta-gaming by NOT meta-gaming?? I can see how that could happen in some cases: "I have out of game knowledge that there is treasure in these caverns, so I won't get my character to investigate those caverns even thought he would." Is as much meta-gaming as "I'll go to those caverns to get the treasure." But that was not the case, my character would not have stoped the hanging, and I decided not to be influenced by the notion the character was a PC instead of an NPC. I guess it's only a matter of how much imersion each group wants. I have no qualms about killing (or getting killed by) another PC if he / she took action that I would kill NPCs for, why should my character know the difference between the two?? But I make sure everyone at the table is okay with that kind of play, and we're all adults about it, not "you killed my toon, I'm never talking to you again" On that note: for those unfamiliar with the "you killed my toon gag": www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvI1yLWvJig
#5 svendj Mar 26, 2012 10:31:07	Most of the alternate solutions you gave, Centauri, were in the DM's hands, not mine. Such as not creating a mob in the first place, having a NPC come to me and beg me to investigate, etc.. Or in the other PCs. While the other PCs could have acted a bit more to get me to save this guy, they did not for unknown reasons to me. But I'm not talking about that, I'm tlaking about, with what MY character knew of the situation, I think that my reaction was correct. My thoughts exactly. If you feel that you would have to take actions that are very out-of-character for you in order to advance the story, it's up to the DM and/or the rest of the party to give your character a reason to take said action. Just the question "you see a random hanging, do you stop it?" is bound to get "no" as an answer 99% of the times. It gets interesting when the DM or the group introduces circumstances that would make your character act, thus making metagaming a non-issue.
#6 kelthazar Mar 26, 2012 13:48:54	I dont see what is wrong with metagaming if you do it right. For instance if something needs to be done (you know so becuase of meagaming) then isnt it the players job to decide a way for the char to get it done. Im not saying that needing to save the players char needed to be done, but im sure you could have come up with a reason for your char to want to save him.
#7 Litmus Mar 26, 2012 16:00:33	Metagaming is only bad when it interferes with the fun at the table. This really is all there is to it.
#8 Kigan Mar 26, 2012 16:39:23	Metagaming is only bad when it interferes with the fun at the table. This really is all there is to it. True, but seeing as I am part of the table, and that I hate having to act THIS much out of character, than it would have interferd with fun around the table, would'nt it? And there is also the notion of trusting our DM. Our DM is very good at taking the twists we trhow at her and making it into an interesting time. So I trusted that no matter what my character did... or did not, my DM would make sure we all got a great time, including the player about to have his character hanged.
#9 Centauri Mar 26, 2012 18:21:05	As for metagaming to give a reason to join together, I agree, but only to a point. It's one thing when during the first session, you accept that three random people will go on the hunt for the children slaver's raiding the village these pas few months, that, I can live with. I ran a game in which a new player coming in was an orc. He encountered the party during a fight and one of the PCs felt like it made sense to fight this strange orc that had just shown up. I told the player to come up with a reason to accept the orc as an ally, suggesting that the fact that they were fighting the same enemy might be a good start. (I also emphasized that this was Eberron, and orcs weren't necessarily all bad.) There were two blocks going on here: the player potentially blocking (i.e. interfering with, making problems for) another player's choice, and me blocking the players idea to attack. Blocking isn't a great way to go, and I could have handled it better, but I felt that it was better to encourage finding a way to get along than to go PvP. I really hate PvP. Most of the alternate solutions you gave, Centauri, were in the DM's hands, not mine. Sort of. Players can always suggest things. This usually requires DM buyoff, but it's a valid way to raise ideas. Such as not creating a mob in the first place, having a NPC come to me and beg me to investigate, etc.. Or in the other PCs. While the other PCs could have acted a bit more to get me to save this guy, they did not for unknown reasons to me. But I'm not talking about that, I'm tlaking about, with what MY character knew of the situation, I think that my reaction was correct. It was a valid way to handle it, but "correct" is overstating it. I still think there were other "correct" ways this could have gone. As for realism, I personnaly do not want to have the feeling that's it's alright to walk into a village, kill a few villagers and not have any repercussion. Every time. Every time I suggest that there's more than one "plausible" way to handle something, people assume that I mean there should be no repercussions. I should get more into the habit of making it clear what I mean. It's plausible that there should be repercussions. However, there is no one "correct" way for those repercussions to play out in reality. He doesn't need to be caught by the mob, he could be chased off, and barred from accessing certain areas of the city without being caught and turned in. That's a repercussion, and it's perfectly plausible, since not all murder suspects are caught. That doesn't mean the killer skates along without any downsides or risks. It could mean that he's pinned down and can't move freely until (as is the case here) his name is somehow cleared. I'm not saying saving him would have been all that bad, if your group prefers this kind of game, well then by all means, play that way! He was saved, eventually. Whether the PCs did it, or some other event, I don't quite see what difference it makes. But I don't mean to be obstuse here, but I still don't see how I was meta-gaming by NOT meta-gaming?? I can see how that could happen in some cases: "I have out of game knowledge that there is treasure in these caverns, so I won't get my character to investigate those caverns even thought he would." Is as much meta-gaming as "I'll go to those caverns to get the treasure." But if we were to ask the character why he's going there, all he or she would have to say is "I think there might be treasure there!" That's particularly plausible in the D&D setting, but just because it happens to be right doesn't mean that the player whose character says that is metagaming. Anyway, it just seems to me that avoiding metagaming becomes a game. The player bends over backwards to make sure the character is blind to and steers clear of all but the most obvious of hints regarding player knowledge. In the worst case, the player actively avoids the DM's attempts to inform the character, with "metagaming" being the excuse given to avoid the hooks. I'm not saying (anymore) that the worst case happened here, but it does happen and that's unfortunate. I guess it's only a matter of how much imersion each group wants. Man, don't get me started on immersion. I have no qualms about killing (or getting killed by) another PC if he / she took action that I would kill NPCs for, why should my character know the difference between the two?? Here's the thing: your character doesn't know the difference. You do. So the reason your character doesn't kill the PC has nothing to do with the fact that it's a PC. But you can come up with a reason for your character not to, just as I requested my player to do in the case of the orc PC. But I make sure everyone at the table is okay with that kind of play, and we're all adults about it, not "you killed my toon, I'm never talking to you again" That's good. On that note: for those unfamiliar with the "you killed my toon gag": www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvI1yLWvJig Classic. Most of the alternate solutions you gave, Centauri, were in the DM's hands, not mine. Such as not creating a mob in the first place, having a NPC come to me and beg me to investigate, etc.. Or in the other PCs. While the other PCs could have acted a bit more to get me to save this guy, they did not for unknown reasons to me. But I'm not talking about that, I'm tlaking about, with what MY character knew of the situation, I think that my reaction was correct. My thoughts exactly. If you feel that you would have to take actions that are very out-of-character for you in order to advance the story, it's up to the DM and/or the rest of the party to give your character a reason to take said action. Just the question "you see a random hanging, do you stop it?" is bound to get "no" as an answer 99% of the times. It gets interesting when the DM or the group introduces circumstances that would make your character act, thus making metagaming a non-issue. The player can and should also be able to introduce such circumstances. I dont see what is wrong with metagaming if you do it right. For instance if something needs to be done (you know so becuase of meagaming) then isnt it the players job to decide a way for the char to get it done. Im not saying that needing to save the players char needed to be done, but im sure you could have come up with a reason for your char to want to save him. That's sort of what I'm saying, yes. I get that everyone enjoyed the game in question. Glad to hear it. But I don't think it's helpful to tell ourselves that things can only go a certain way to remain plausible, or that player knowledge should never influence character actions.
#10 Madfox11 Mar 27, 2012 6:50:38	Maybe we should step away from the particular example? It seems to detract from the actual argument*, which is that in a game of make belief deciding that your character does not know something is as much meta-gaming as deciding that the character does have the information. Which in turn is only used as a counter argument when people use meta-gaming as an excuse for jerk behavior by somebody, including the DM, at the gaming table. Each and everybody at the table is responsible for the fun of everybody at the game. If your personal refusal to help a PC leads to hurt feeling, than you are responsible for it (although more often than not you are likely to share it with DM who setup the situation in the first place). Hiding behind meta-gaming is a weak argument, since you should have no trouble at all to come with a reason on (a) how your character would know more about the situation (with or without the DM's aid) and (b) think of a reason on why your character would help that both make sense from a story, world and character perspective. * Your character not acting did not cause hurt feelings, so you are not hiding behind meta-gaming to cloak jerk behavior ;)
#11 mrscapegoat Mar 27, 2012 10:23:08	I have to agree with some of the comments here that metagame is not all bad. When its used to keep the party together its usually ok and as long as its not being used to hurt people.  I know in my group we often will try to avoid metagaming so much that it actually becomes metagaming it self, almost trying to find reasons not to react in order to avoid slipping up. The one place we don't seem to mind it is keeping the party together and will often ignore reasons to seperate in order to move the game along. I also wanted to respond a bit to the OP's example.  I actually think it was in some ways metagaming to not react to the situation or at the very least you could have found a reason to get involved as others have suggested.  While I don't know I imagine your character has been around for everything if not most everything up until this point (not sure how many sessions however).  Now I ask why did you character disapear for the time these events occured?  Where you away on buisness?  Did you character get kidnapped or was invastigating wrong doings elsewhere?  From you post it would seem you character was not there because you yourself could not make it to the session.  Is this not in a way metagaming? Or at the very least out of character events effecting in character ones? Did you at least come up with a reason why you character was gone at this time?  Couldn't you as well come up with reasons why your character witnessed events that would prove this characters innocents while off screen, or some other reasons to get involved?
#12 Centauri Mar 27, 2012 11:39:16	Maybe we should step away from the particular example? It seems to detract from the actual argument*, which is that in a game of make belief deciding that your character does not know something is as much meta-gaming as deciding that the character does have the information. Which in turn is only used as a counter argument when people use meta-gaming as an excuse for jerk behavior by somebody, including the DM, at the gaming table. Each and everybody at the table is responsible for the fun of everybody at the game. If your personal refusal to help a PC leads to hurt feeling, than you are responsible for it (although more often than not you are likely to share it with DM who setup the situation in the first place). Hiding behind meta-gaming is a weak argument, since you should have no trouble at all to come with a reason on (a) how your character would know more about the situation (with or without the DM's aid) and (b) think of a reason on why your character would help that both make sense from a story, world and character perspective. * Your character not acting did not cause hurt feelings, so you are not hiding behind meta-gaming to cloak jerk behavior ;) Thank you. That is what I'm trying to say. "Metagaming" and "realism" should not be used as excuses for unpleasantness, not that they necessarily did in this case. That said, sometimes what one person sees as a perfectly valid and expected in-game response can come across as overly harsh and even vindictive. Ideally, everyone would agree that any given response is "correct," and value it for either its "realism" or its "coolness," rather than the positive or negative effect it has on a given character. As the saying goes "The true patriot is the person who gets a speeding ticket and rejoices that the system works." I think that our feelings about D&D are often similar: The true D&D player is the person whose character is hung for murder (say) and rejoices that the system works. Both of those have merit, but I think they're both a bit overly simplistic. However, that's a strawman argument on my part.
#13 Litmus Mar 27, 2012 15:04:16	Metagaming is only bad when it interferes with the fun at the table. This really is all there is to it. True, but seeing as I am part of the table, and that I hate having to act THIS much out of character, than it would have interferd with fun around the table, would'nt it? Good players find ways to make the story work and stay in character at the same time.  Everyone at the table shares the responsibility for a fun game.
#14 Centauri Mar 28, 2012 0:32:05	The trouble with reasonable discussions is that the point gets settled to everyone's satisfaction and the topic dies out.
#15 Kigan Mar 28, 2012 2:09:01	Reasonnable discussion is what we're having here, at least I think so. Good players find ways to make the story work and stay in character at the same time.  Everyone at the table shares the responsibility for a fun game. If I get killed by another PC, than it becomes the story of how I got killed by that PC, and the story worked perfectly fine thank you very much. NOW.... if we have reasons to believe that the in-game feud was provoked by out of game jerkness, or to resolve out of game tentions between the two players, now I need to say that you guys are right. If it's the third time the same player is killing another PC, something's going on that needs adressing. I also wanted to respond a bit to the OP's example.  I actually think it was in some ways metagaming to not react to the situation or at the very least you could have found a reason to get involved as others have suggested.  While I don't know I imagine your character has been around for everything if not most everything up until this point (not sure how many sessions however).  Now I ask why did you character disapear for the time these events occured?  Where you away on buisness?  Did you character get kidnapped or was invastigating wrong doings elsewhere?  From you post it would seem you character was not there because you yourself could not make it to the session.  Is this not in a way metagaming? Or at the very least out of character events effecting in character ones? Did you at least come up with a reason why you character was gone at this time?  Couldn't you as well come up with reasons why your character witnessed events that would prove this characters innocents while off screen, or some other reasons to get involved? To answer: my DM gives us in-game reason when we can't attend out-of-game. In this case it was quite easy. The last game I played, we were in a dream sent to us by a powerfull wizard to warn us of something. The others woke up during the session I missed, I did not.  I ran a game in which a new player coming in was an orc. He encountered the party during a fight and one of the PCs felt like it made sense to fight this strange orc that had just shown up. I told the player to come up with a reason to accept the orc as an ally, suggesting that the fact that they were fighting the same enemy might be a good start. (I also emphasized that this was Eberron, and orcs weren't necessarily all bad.) The part where you remind the player that in this settings, orcs are not universally hated is the part we agree on, that's remembering the player that immersion in his character requires him to have been raised in this setting, and as a result not attack the orc on sight, good call!! However, if you only said: you can't do this because I said so, that would have been where I took my dices, books, and just as important: pizza share and wished you all good night. In this situation, I would have let them fight it out a little while, and have outside forces intervene to give a chance for the orc to prove himself to the other PC, making for good stories later: "Remember when you tried to kill me on sight?" "Oh yeah... good times, who would have thought we'd become this close today heh, I'll drink to friendship and the past!!" There were two blocks going on here: the player potentially blocking (i.e. interfering with, making problems for) another player's choice... Agreed, but only because your setting is one where orcs aren't universally disliked. If they were, than the argument would be invalid since the player choosing an orc chose to rp a race hated on sight. By blocking the other PC, YOU are actually the one blocking the orc'S PC's choice. It's plausible that there should be repercussions. However, there is no one "correct" way for those repercussions to play out in reality. He doesn't need to be caught by the mob, he could be chased off, and barred from accessing certain areas of the city without being caught and turned in. That's a repercussion, and it's perfectly plausible, since not all murder suspects are caught. That doesn't mean the killer skates along without any downsides or risks. It could mean that he's pinned down and can't move freely until (as is the case here) his name is somehow cleared. True, but you are putting words in my mouth, I never said our DM's solution of hanging the culpright was the ONLY correct one. But just as I agree that your solutions could in fact be correct options, I maintain that so was her's. It was ONE OF MANY ways to deal with the situation, and I personnaly think and maintain that it was A correct one, I never said it was THE correct one, sorry if I had it implied.  But I don't mean to be obstuse here, but I still don't see how I was meta-gaming by NOT meta-gaming?? I can see how that could happen in some cases: "I have out of game knowledge that there is treasure in these caverns, so I won't get my character to investigate those caverns even thought he would." Is as much meta-gaming as "I'll go to those caverns to get the treasure." But if we were to ask the character why he's going there, all he or she would have to say is "I think there might be treasure there!" That's particularly plausible in the D&D setting, but just because it happens to be right doesn't mean that the player whose character says that is metagaming. Ah, but that's when you have to take second degree in it. Sure: "Why are you going in that cavern?"  might be answered by: "Because I think there is treasure in it." But then the question becomes: "Why do you think there is treasure in it?" If you can think of an in-game reason (that your character knows), great, than that is not meta-gaming, if you can't...well if the shoe fits... Anyway, it just seems to me that avoiding metagaming becomes a game. The player bends over backwards to make sure the character is blind to and steers clear of all but the most obvious of hints regarding player knowledge. In the worst case, the player actively avoids the DM's attempts to inform the character, with "metagaming" being the excuse given to avoid the hooks. On that point, we agree 100% I have no qualms about killing (or getting killed by) another PC if he / she took action that I would kill NPCs for, why should my character know the difference between the two?? Here's the thing: your character doesn't know the difference. You do. So the reason your character doesn't kill the PC has nothing to do with the fact that it's a PC. But you can come up with a reason for your character not to, just as I requested my player to do in the case of the orc PC. And that is where I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can, sure, but I should not have to. A DM forcing me to, except in some very special situation (such as one time when we introduced a young kid to a game of D&D, so we were cutting him some slacks, since it WAS a kid learning the ropes after all...), than that DM would lose me as a player. In fact, knowing the group of people I play with, they would propably follow me out of the room, then start a game with another DM. Most of the alternate solutions you gave, Centauri, were in the DM's hands, not mine. Such as not creating a mob in the first place, having a NPC come to me and beg me to investigate, etc.. Or in the other PCs. While the other PCs could have acted a bit more to get me to save this guy, they did not for unknown reasons to me. But I'm not talking about that, I'm tlaking about, with what MY character knew of the situation, I think that my reaction was correct. My thoughts exactly. If you feel that you would have to take actions that are very out-of-character for you in order to advance the story, it's up to the DM and/or the rest of the party to give your character a reason to take said action. Just the question "you see a random hanging, do you stop it?" is bound to get "no" as an answer 99% of the times. It gets interesting when the DM or the group introduces circumstances that would make your character act, thus making metagaming a non-issue. The player can and should also be able to introduce such circumstances. Can, yes, should, no. Once again, let's agree to disagree.   Maybe we should step away from the particular example? It seems to detract from the actual argument*, which is that in a game of make belief deciding that your character does not know something is as much meta-gaming as deciding that the character does have the information. Deciding that he forgot something because you don't want him to have to act on the knowledge is meta-gaming. Deciding that he does not know something when he was not there when the information was given and had no occasion to learn that information, and what's more, no plausible reasons to look for said information, that's not metagaming, heck, that's not even making the decision that he does not know, it's only acknowledging the fact. * Your character not acting did not cause hurt feelings, so you are not hiding behind meta-gaming to cloak jerk behavior ;) Thanks for acknowledging that.  "Metagaming" and "realism" should not be used as excuses for unpleasantness, not that they necessarily did in this case. Once more, I can't say enough how glad I am to have this discussion with reasonnable people. On so many forums, this thread would have turned to name calling by now, so thank you for acknowledging the fact that this was not the case this time. But, my character bewing a jerk towards your's does not equal me being a jerk to you. Sometimes it can, but those situations need to be handled out of game. And if someone is not mature enough to see the difference, than maybe he's not mature enough to be playing D&D.
#16 Madfox11 Mar 28, 2012 3:04:33	But, my character bewing a jerk towards your's does not equal me being a jerk to you. Sometimes it can, but those situations need to be handled out of game. And if someone is not mature enough to see the difference, than maybe he's not mature enough to be playing D&D. I wish it was that simple ;) There is always the social contract, and in many groups I observed one of its rules is that players should never screw each other regardless of IC reasons. Breaking such a rule, even when dealing with otherwise reasonable people, will lead to hurt feelings. It is a matter of gaming style and preferences and that does not has much to do with maturity.
#17 gomeztoo Mar 28, 2012 14:34:22	I think we should keep in mind though that in these situations it is the responsibilty for everyone playing  to give context. Players can get a bit caught up in the moment. I know I have a time or two. Sometimes you just see that one option. If other players can give alternatives, they should. If nobody does, it is a bit dumb to blame that one player for doing something off-beat. Gomez
#18 Centauri Mar 28, 2012 16:57:00	Good players find ways to make the story work and stay in character at the same time.  Everyone at the table shares the responsibility for a fun game. If I get killed by another PC, than it becomes the story of how I got killed by that PC, and the story worked perfectly fine thank you very much. Good in theory, but what I usually see is that no one wants to accept defeat in that situation and so no one will accept DM ruling on ambiguous rules, and there are hurt feelings. If you decide that it's appropriate for your character to be killed, and let the character be killed, that's metagaming, unless the character actually had a death wish of some kind. I ran a game in which a new player coming in was an orc. He encountered the party during a fight and one of the PCs felt like it made sense to fight this strange orc that had just shown up. I told the player to come up with a reason to accept the orc as an ally, suggesting that the fact that they were fighting the same enemy might be a good start. (I also emphasized that this was Eberron, and orcs weren't necessarily all bad.) The part where you remind the player that in this settings, orcs are not universally hated is the part we agree on, that's remembering the player that immersion in his character requires him to have been raised in this setting, and as a result not attack the orc on sight, good call!! However, if you only said: you can't do this because I said so, that would have been where I took my dices, books, and just as important: pizza share and wished you all good night. In this situation, I would have let them fight it out a little while, and have outside forces intervene to give a chance for the orc to prove himself to the other PC, making for good stories later: "Remember when you tried to kill me on sight?" "Oh yeah... good times, who would have thought we'd become this close today heh, I'll drink to friendship and the past!!" Well, there was also no clear in-game reason NOT to fear and attack the orc in this case. The main enemies were human, and humans aren't universally reviled either. Frankly, neither of these players would have been able to handle "fighting it out," and the game would have become sidetracked, arguments would have arisen, and feelings would have been hurt. Decreeing that the players had to work out a reason not to fight was the right thing to do. There are things I don't allow in my game. Mostly it has to do with the boundaries of good taste, but in particular, at the time that game was going on, I didn't allow PvP attacks for the reasons stated above. Since then, I've modified my approach because I agree that mutually agreed to conflict can be fun. Nowadays, PCs can attack each other all they want, but no dice are rolled, and the defender gets to decide the effect the attackers actions have on the defender (within reason: an attack isn't going to make someone feel better but it can miss, wound, or kill outright). PCs can still kill other PCs, but only if those involved agree it's appropriate. There were two blocks going on here: the player potentially blocking (i.e. interfering with, making problems for) another player's choice... Agreed, but only because your setting is one where orcs aren't universally disliked. If they were, than the argument would be invalid since the player choosing an orc chose to rp a race hated on sight. By blocking the other PC, YOU are actually the one blocking the orc'S PC's choice. Not necessarily. He might be choosing to play the race for other reasons, other than being universally hated, and while I don't tend to think that's appropriate, I'm not going to quash a character concept because of it. Races generally aren't balanced with social perceptions taken into account. If they were, I would be less inclined to let a player take a reviled race and not be disliked for it. Here's the other thing though: just because a race is hated, doesn't mean everyone has to attack it on sight. I didn't tell the players they couldn't hate each other, just that they had to get along. Enemies work together all the time, so if nothing else they could join sides against the common enemy in this case. It's plausible that there should be repercussions. However, there is no one "correct" way for those repercussions to play out in reality. He doesn't need to be caught by the mob, he could be chased off, and barred from accessing certain areas of the city without being caught and turned in. That's a repercussion, and it's perfectly plausible, since not all murder suspects are caught. That doesn't mean the killer skates along without any downsides or risks. It could mean that he's pinned down and can't move freely until (as is the case here) his name is somehow cleared. True, but you are putting words in my mouth, I never said our DM's solution of hanging the culpright was the ONLY correct one. But just as I agree that your solutions could in fact be correct options, I maintain that so was her's. It was ONE OF MANY ways to deal with the situation, and I personnaly think and maintain that it was A correct one, I never said it was THE correct one, sorry if I had it implied. Hers was fine because it wasn't meant as or applied as punishment, and didn't cause problems. However, if the situation did cause problems, such as hurt feelings, a hitch in the DM's larger plans, or even a delay of the game while a new character was created and introduced, then this way of dealing with the situation would be questionable. But I don't mean to be obstuse here, but I still don't see how I was meta-gaming by NOT meta-gaming?? I can see how that could happen in some cases: "I have out of game knowledge that there is treasure in these caverns, so I won't get my character to investigate those caverns even thought he would." Is as much meta-gaming as "I'll go to those caverns to get the treasure." But if we were to ask the character why he's going there, all he or she would have to say is "I think there might be treasure there!" That's particularly plausible in the D&D setting, but just because it happens to be right doesn't mean that the player whose character says that is metagaming. Ah, but that's when you have to take second degree in it. Sure: "Why are you going in that cavern?"  might be answered by: "Because I think there is treasure in it." But then the question becomes: "Why do you think there is treasure in it?" If you can think of an in-game reason (that your character knows), great, than that is not meta-gaming, if you can't...well if the shoe fits... Agreed, but since the cavern was probably meant to be explored anyway, the appropriate reason can and should be almost anything. "I heard a rumor about it," "I had a dream about it," "I have a hunch," "Whoops, I got confused, I meant this other cavern, oh, well, we're here," etc. I have no qualms about killing (or getting killed by) another PC if he / she took action that I would kill NPCs for, why should my character know the difference between the two?? Here's the thing: your character doesn't know the difference. You do. So the reason your character doesn't kill the PC has nothing to do with the fact that it's a PC. But you can come up with a reason for your character not to, just as I requested my player to do in the case of the orc PC. And that is where I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can, sure, but I should not have to. A DM forcing me to, except in some very special situation (such as one time when we introduced a young kid to a game of D&D, so we were cutting him some slacks, since it WAS a kid learning the ropes after all...), than that DM would lose me as a player. In fact, knowing the group of people I play with, they would propably follow me out of the room, then start a game with another DM. So, you agree that there are circumstances that make metagaming appropriate. All we disagree on are what those circumstances are. Maybe we should step away from the particular example? It seems to detract from the actual argument*, which is that in a game of make belief deciding that your character does not know something is as much meta-gaming as deciding that the character does have the information. Deciding that he forgot something because you don't want him to have to act on the knowledge is meta-gaming. Deciding that he does not know something when he was not there when the information was given and had no occasion to learn that information, and what's more, no plausible reasons to look for said information, that's not metagaming, heck, that's not even making the decision that he does not know, it's only acknowledging the fact. "Fact" and "plausible" may be broader than you think it is. I'll concede this case, but not every case. "Metagaming" and "realism" should not be used as excuses for unpleasantness, not that they necessarily did in this case. Once more, I can't say enough how glad I am to have this discussion with reasonnable people. On so many forums, this thread would have turned to name calling by now, so thank you for acknowledging the fact that this was not the case this time. But, my character bewing a jerk towards your's does not equal me being a jerk to you. Sometimes it can, but those situations need to be handled out of game. And if someone is not mature enough to see the difference, than maybe he's not mature enough to be playing D&D. Along those same lines, if someone cannot step out of a game to see how one plausible course of action will be boring at the table and another will be interesting, then maybe they are not mature enough to be playing anything but the simplest and most straightforward game of D&D. They certainly shouldn't be DMing it.
#19 Kigan Mar 29, 2012 2:01:37	If you decide that it's appropriate for your character to be killed, and let the character be killed, that's metagaming, unless the character actually had a death wish of some kind. Who said anything about letting my character die? I'll play him to the best of his capacities, if it's not enough to have him survive, that's not letting him die now, isn't it? Frankly, neither of these players would have been able to handle "fighting it out," and the game would have become sidetracked, arguments would have arisen, and feelings would have been hurt. Decreeing that the players had to work out a reason not to fight was the right thing to do. Hey, you are the one who knows your players. If what you did helped make (or at least keep) the game fun, you did the right thing for your table. All I'm saying is it would not be good at our table. Not necessarily. He might be choosing to play the race for other reasons, other than being universally hated, and while I don't tend to think that's appropriate, I'm not going to quash a character concept because of it. Races generally aren't balanced with social perceptions taken into account. If they were, I would be less inclined to let a player take a reviled race and not be disliked for it. True, they are not balanced with social standing in mind, but balance is only one small aspect of the game. I don't want my players to choose their races just because there is a +6 in charisma and that makes the race good sorcerers. Not saying it's not ok to do that, but you are choosing a race, not stat blocks. Here's the other thing though: just because a race is hated, doesn't mean everyone has to attack it on sight. I didn't tell the players they couldn't hate each other, just that they had to get along. Enemies work together all the time, so if nothing else they could join sides against the common enemy in this case. Point granted, and you, as a DM are in controll of hundreds or more NPC to play that fact out. As a player, I have ONE character, and that is for me to decide if he will fall in the "attack on sight" or "try to work with" category. But I agree that attacking on sight might be an extreme situation, but what about conflict? Especially in heavy political intrigue adventures. What if two PCs reach an impasse in opinions. Maybe they can agree to disagree, but when the fate of two kingdoms depends on who they give the Staff Of whatever to, and both are convinced of the inherent good in their actions, eventually they may have to come to blows. That theme has been used in so many fictions, and it makes for such great scenes, I'd hate to rule away the PCs' ability to do this. "Don't force me to fight you, you are a brother to me!! If you give him the staff, it's the end of all we fought for! He murdered hundreds to get this close to the throne!!" "And you are like a sister to me, but can't you see that all this man did was with noble intentions? Yes he killed hundreds, and it's true that those sacrifice will be the end of all we fought for, but only to replace it with a better world. He killed short-sighted people that would rather let the people continue to live in poverty than to embrace the future, I HAVE to give him the staff, please get out of my way, I don't want your blood on my sword!" "I can't get out of your way, the ghosts of hundreds are asking me for revenge, don't test your steel against my magic, you'll come up short, and we'll both lose." "If you don't move, we'll have to see about that, won't we "sister"?" Well, I'm glad you arranged it so that that scene could play out instead of having the DM say: "work it out". Agreed, but since the cavern was probably meant to be explored anyway, the appropriate reason can and should be almost anything. "I heard a rumor about it," "I had a dream about it," "I have a hunch," "Whoops, I got confused, I meant this other cavern, oh, well, we're here," etc. Well, as long as you play D&D in a way you and your group likes, your playing it right, no? But in my group, that would be the time where the DM would look at you sideway with THAT look in it's eyes meaning: "Really, what are you trying to pull here buddy?" At the very least he / she would have me make an appropriate Knowledge check to see if it was propable that my cahracter knew this. Of course, I trust my DMs to make sure that finding out such information is a great adventure in and out of itself, which is a big part of why I don't mind and have developped to like this kind of play. So, you agree that there are circumstances that make metagaming appropriate. All we disagree on are what those circumstances are. Yes.  "Fact" and "plausible" may be broader than you think it is. I'll concede this case, but not every case. I can live with that, and I concede some points too, especially that I would prefer metagaming than loosing a real-life friend over a game!! Along those same lines, if someone cannot step out of a game to see how one plausible course of action will be boring at the table and another will be interesting, then maybe they are not mature enough to be playing anything but the simplest and most straightforward game of D&D. They certainly shouldn't be DMing it. You have a point, I'll think about it. What strikes me odd in this discussion, is that I seem to be in a minority thinking the way I am, while in my group of friends, my opinion actually makes unanimity. So I've been thinking about where I know my D&D friends from: LARPG!! In LARPGs, there may be hundreds of players on the field at all times, during the entire weekend. Some of them play bad guys, other play good guys, other just want money, power or simply to survive. PVP is not only accepted, but implied. When the weekend ends, we all take off our costumes, makeoff and latex weapons and we go grab a peace of pizza, having a friendly talk about how we tried to kill each other. Maybe we just take that philosophy back with us during D&D sessions to make us patient during winter waiting for the next LARPG to start... just a thought.
#20 Bohrdumb Mar 29, 2012 12:21:49	So I didn't read the initial thread where this discussion took place, but I have read most (though not quite all) the thoughts posted here. Meta (in my mind) is essentially changing the actions of a character based on knowledge unavailable to that character. The important here is the word 'unavailable.' If a character never knew that the BBEG had a twin sister who happend to posses the implement of his ultimate destruction, the group wouldn't know to embark on that quest to prepare for the BBEG. However, if the character has the capacity and potential to find that information, then you as a player have a non-meta right to embark on said quest, ie the story is a common tale and it's likely you heard it at some point and therefore probably have the information even if you fail a History check and your character has no Religion and refuses to open books. Now if the tale is dead and buried, and only one or two people in the world are aware of the situation and the writings are in a completely dead language and you have no way of knowing the language, and have never spoken to the keepers of that particular piece of lore, but you say something like:  'Hey guys, I know the bad guys a dude, and we met this chick earlier, chances are she has a piece of :::insert awesome plot device::: and by bribing her with honey, and yea I know honey sounds wierd but I read the monster manual and I know she likes honey, we should be able to accomplish this.' We would all agree that is a meta move. The distinction goes beyond what are you certain your character knows, to more vague things like what your character might possibly know, or has likely been exposed to at some point. A real life example would be that you're hiking through the woods and get lost. Well I know most rivers flow down hill (usually north - south over the long run) and I know that when I parked my car I was facing the sun in the morning, and that the clouds over head should be moving mostly east - west... I can deduce roughly the direction I should be walking if I want to wander into the major highway I know is nearby. I couldn't pinpoint all the places I learned the little tidbits of information, but I am a human adult male who grow up in the suburbs and has been in the woods before so some of it seeped into my brain. As per the game example, chances are your character has access to more information than you may be aware of, and ignoring that for the sake of not meta-gaming is a bit of a copout... tl:dr What you know your character knows, and what your character really should know aren't always the same. Acting on the first to the ignorance of the second misses out on the chance for some real character depth. /I've bolded sections to highlight basic points.
#21 Centauri Mar 29, 2012 15:15:42	If you decide that it's appropriate for your character to be killed, and let the character be killed, that's metagaming, unless the character actually had a death wish of some kind. Who said anything about letting my character die? I'll play him to the best of his capacities, if it's not enough to have him survive, that's not letting him die now, isn't it? Well, in a simple, straightforward fight, maybe. In my experience with PvP is a very messy affair because any questionable rules pits player against player, and the DM is bound to disappoint one. "I had my sword at his neck! There's no way he could survive!" "Wait, how did he sneak up on me?" "No, he doesn't get that bonus because he's my enemy right now." Even if one player admits that his character was in the wrong and deserves to die, dropping objections to questionable rules and letting his character die is tantamount to metagaming, unless the character itself wants to die. Not necessarily. He might be choosing to play the race for other reasons, other than being universally hated, and while I don't tend to think that's appropriate, I'm not going to quash a character concept because of it. Races generally aren't balanced with social perceptions taken into account. If they were, I would be less inclined to let a player take a reviled race and not be disliked for it. True, they are not balanced with social standing in mind, but balance is only one small aspect of the game. I don't want my players to choose their races just because there is a +6 in charisma and that makes the race good sorcerers. Not saying it's not ok to do that, but you are choosing a race, not stat blocks. I would talk to the player about their choice, if it was for some reason too implausible for the character to do normal adventuring stuff, but generally feel it's not my place to judge the reasons for character choices. Roleplaying and optimization are not inherently exclusive. Here's the other thing though: just because a race is hated, doesn't mean everyone has to attack it on sight. I didn't tell the players they couldn't hate each other, just that they had to get along. Enemies work together all the time, so if nothing else they could join sides against the common enemy in this case. Point granted, and you, as a DM are in controll of hundreds or more NPC to play that fact out. As a player, I have ONE character, and that is for me to decide if he will fall in the "attack on sight" or "try to work with" category. But I agree that attacking on sight might be an extreme situation, but what about conflict? Conflict is fine by me, as long as it's interesting and going to go somewhere, and not just an endless back and forth. If it seemed interminable, I'd ask the players involved which PC it would be more interesting to have win this round, and ask them to roleplay to that conclusion. If neither could see an interesting game coming out of the other winning the conflict, I'd probably just have something occur to cause them both to lose. Then they have to work together again until they can get back to their personal conflict. Agreed, but since the cavern was probably meant to be explored anyway, the appropriate reason can and should be almost anything. "I heard a rumor about it," "I had a dream about it," "I have a hunch," "Whoops, I got confused, I meant this other cavern, oh, well, we're here," etc. Well, as long as you play D&D in a way you and your group likes, your playing it right, no? But in my group, that would be the time where the DM would look at you sideway with THAT look in it's eyes meaning: "Really, what are you trying to pull here buddy?" At the very least he / she would have me make an appropriate Knowledge check to see if it was propable that my cahracter knew this. I'm talking about something that the DM intends the party to investigate anyway. Usually a DM plots this out, and gives the PCs the information, but I could see a new character having to be developed and brought to the cave to join the PCs. Why is he there? Well, the easiest is for the DM to say that the new PC got the same information as the others, but since the game only works if he arrives there any interesting reason should be accepted. I'm not talking about a player saying "Oh, I heard about this, there's an item there that we can just go in and take." But even if that happened, there are ways for a DM to deal with that other than blocking characters that have no knowledge of the item or its location. Along those same lines, if someone cannot step out of a game to see how one plausible course of action will be boring at the table and another will be interesting, then maybe they are not mature enough to be playing anything but the simplest and most straightforward game of D&D. They certainly shouldn't be DMing it. You have a point, I'll think about it. What strikes me odd in this discussion, is that I seem to be in a minority thinking the way I am, while in my group of friends, my opinion actually makes unanimity. So I've been thinking about where I know my D&D friends from: LARPG!! In LARPGs, there may be hundreds of players on the field at all times, during the entire weekend. Some of them play bad guys, other play good guys, other just want money, power or simply to survive. PVP is not only accepted, but implied. When the weekend ends, we all take off our costumes, makeoff and latex weapons and we go grab a peace of pizza, having a friendly talk about how we tried to kill each other. Maybe we just take that philosophy back with us during D&D sessions to make us patient during winter waiting for the next LARPG to start... just a thought. This is a fascinating insight. I have never LARPED. I can imagine that coming from that perspective would cause someone to address the pen-and-paper game much differently. Are there rules questions that arise in LARP, times when one person thinks a kill was good and someone else doesn't? I would think that players sometimes have to accept results that they think are not only unpleasant but unrealistic in order for the game to proceed. I assume there are referees of some kind who just rules on things, but it really would be more like sports, right? And what if it's an issue of where on the body a weapon contacted, and the ref didn't see it? Are things like stealth and surprise handled by one's own prowess, or are there "in-character" traits at work? That is, is my ability to sneak up on you entirely reliant on my own ability to sneak, or do I get to somehow "declare" that I, the thief, am sneaking and everyone agrees I can't be seen? What if my target, who then knows I'm sneaking, breaks into a run, in a direction that just happens to be away from me and towards people who can spot me? Does he have to give a reason for this action? Apart from things like "Magic isn't real," is there such a thing as "out of character" knowledge in a LARP, or does your character know everything you are able to see and hear? If you know your friend the mage on the other team forgot his contact lenses, might you use that information with your side when planning strategy? What if you flavored it as "I have prayed to Odin to cloud the spellcaster's eyes"? I imagine you know things about the size of the enemy forces based on who showed up, but I imagine that's dealt with by someone (the "ref" or someone) stating that "intelligence" has confirmed the size and location of the enemies, or anything else the players can't avoid knowing, so as to bring it into the game and avoid questions of what is known. I'm very interested.
#22 Kigan Mar 30, 2012 15:06:34	Wow, all right, questions about LARPG, did not see this one comming, I'll be glad to answer to the best of my capacities. Are things like stealth and surprise handled by one's own prowess, or are there "in-character" traits at work? That is, is my ability to sneak up on you entirely reliant on my own ability to sneak, or do I get to somehow "declare" that I, the thief, am sneaking and everyone agrees I can't be seen? Well, no two LARPG are the same, and answers will vary extremly. I could link a few of the forums to the rules for those I play (and the one I DM into), but they are all in french... Now there are two kinds of LARPG, the first being a simple battlefield, people bash each other, rince and repeat, I don't play those. The others are more D&D like (althought the setting could be Star-Wars or whatever), I'm gonna talk about these. In the exemple given above, (sneaking) it's usually a bit of both. While most LARPGs don't have levels (but some do), they almost all have XP. The players can then use those XP to buy skills, spells, more hit points, better attacks, etc... Some of those spells (invisibility) will help sneaking, of course. In a lot of games, there are signs, like putting your hand in the air as a fist to indicate you are invisible. People around you must act accordingly. Sneaking could also be a skill, like , let's say: "shadow sneak: as long as you are in a shadowy area and don't move faster than a crawl, your character can not be seen, put your fist in the air just as if you were invisible." Of course, if someone is good enough to do this without skill or spell, he just does it. What if my target, who then knows I'm sneaking, breaks into a run, in a direction that just happens to be away from me and towards people who can spot me? Does he have to give a reason for this action? Yes, without good reason, this is considered bad sport, and a DM could give a cheating warning (in the one I DM, you get to challenge a warning after the play in question, never during. If the warning stays, than it's one warning. Second will get you thrown off the play, you may come back the next time. Third will have you thrown out the play, you may NOT come back right away, we decide how long the banishment lasts, and fourth, you're out for good). Apart from things like "Magic isn't real," is there such a thing as "out of character" knowledge in a LARP, or does your character know everything you are able to see and hear?   Well, magic IS real in most LARPG. Say I cast a healing spell, touch you and than say: "+5 HP". You add 5 to your current HP (which all player must remember, not right or anything). I can cast a charm, for example: "Uzhegh Vogi Yerek Kargi Ardazan Ashan" is a command spell. If you were my target I would then say to you: Command spell, level 3, lasts five minutes", and, as written in the spell, give you a sentence of maximum three words you would HAVE to obey, such as: "Heal me", or "Attack your friends", "protect me", etc... Another exemple of magic would be me casting a call lightning: "(insert cast here)": "You, in the back with the pegasus shield, lightning bolt, 3 electric damage, spell level 5!" He takes 3 damages, or says: "resists" if he actually has a way to resist, and since it's a level 5 spell, I deduce 5 mana point from my total. As for player knowledge, it is highly discouraged when specific to the play. If I have real-life konowledge about survival in a forest, my character can use this. If I learned that the lich's philacter is hidden near the bridge while I'm out-of-game because two players could not shut up in the parking lot, I should disregard that information in-game. But the players who did not shut up will be frowned upon. Why? Because if I now get a clue as to where the philacter is, how do I decide if my character would be smart enough to get the clue since I, out-of-game already know where it is. Some LARPG simply say: "Hey, you talk about it out-of-game, too bad, learn to shut up." But for the example you gave about the contact lense, no, you should definitly not play on that knowledge, since the character being played himself does not need contact lenses. In fact, I have seen a lot of games halt when someone yelps: "Guys, I lost my contact lenses in the last fight, help me find it." Everyone agrees to put the game on halt, help the player, whether he's an in-game enemy or not, than everyone get back to their positions, and the game starts anew. But in some games (including the one I DM in), there are knowledge skills that can be bought. Those can be handled differently. In some games, sometimes the DM will say: everyone who has knowledge: "Undead", come over here, I'll tell you what you know about this creature. That effectively puts a time out on the game untill those players come back. They may then scream: "Everyone: that's a revenge ghost, she won't attack unarmed people, so keep the warriors away!" In my game, we took another road: We give knowledge at the start of the play, one piece of paper with information relative to the knowledge you have, one for each knowledge skill you bought. Those are of course cumulative to the next plays, and can be shared in-game with players who don't have the knowledge. Are there rules questions that arise in LARP, times when one person thinks a kill was good and someone else doesn't? I would think that players sometimes have to accept results that they think are not only unpleasant but unrealistic in order for the game to proceed. I assume there are referees of some kind who just rules on things, but it really would be more like sports, right? And what if it's an issue of where on the body a weapon contacted, and the ref didn't see it? Some LARPG just go with overall HP, so whether you hit on the arm, leg or body won't matter (head hits never count, and someone willingly whacking the head could be thrown out). Some will give Different HP to the arms, legs, and torso. In the one I DM, characters start with 2 HP on each member, and 5 on the torso. A kill is when someon loses two members or the torso. One-handed weapons deal 1 damage, and two-handed  weapons (except staffs) deal 2 damages. Wearing armor augment your effective HP total, as well as buying the "Endurance" skill. Some spell and some ability will also allow you to deal more damage. (Fighters get all those things for free, the right to wear armor, endurance, and better damage with their weapons of choice.) There are referee, but they are not always there (the playing field is actually a huge forest...). So we play with the honor system, trusting each players, but being severe if someone is caught cheating (althought sometimes it's just misunderstanding of the rules). Here is an example of conflict I witnessed between two players. One has the skill to put two arrows on his bow. The other had a spell on him called "warning" (well, it was called "avertissement", but I'm translating to english). What the spell does is warn you of ONE attack made against you, which you can dodge, even if you actually has been hit by that attack. So player 2 called "warning" and mimed a dodge action, but player 1 argued that player 2 was protected against one arrow, not two, as per the "Warning" spell definition. The other one agreed, but said that the spell actually allowed him to sidestep the first arrow, and considering that the two arrows arrived with less than a second of difference, sidestepping the first would automatically allow him to sidestep the second. They eventually agreed to act as if player 1 did not use his skill to shoot two arrows (since it's usable once per fight), and player 2 did not take any damage. Everyone found it more important to get the game going than to have a clear ruling. Later, they questionned a DM who agreed with player 2. The rulling was made public after the game so future cases would not be argued again.