Strategery and stuff

[Dogma]

A place to discuss group strategy ( or lack there of... )

[riftstone]

Guys, Lindon can take the lantern and use it from the second row. He can put away the crossbow and use a spear over the halfling's head. That way we have the light close to the front.

[Makofan]

Guys, Lindon can take the lantern and use it from the second row. He can put away the crossbow and use a spear over the halfling's head. That way we have the light close to the front.

Sounds good to me. Brax is going to hang in the back until some other people get wounded; then he may take aother turn

[mithrandir138]

Sorry for not posting all week - I have been out of town all week in Chicago and now I am sitting in the dark in my father-in-law's house in Virginia (can't sleep). I have read what has happened in the past week, and Gamil is just going to stand his ground, and not break ranks, while the sneakier types are seeing what's in the room.

[Makofan]

Current Marching Order

Brax+ Gamil
Jofrid Lindon
Morel Lavex
Peader+ Alastor*

+ wounded

[mithrandir138]

Not trying to meta-game too much, but since this is a strategy thread: I would be laying the smack down ("coup de grace") on the lizards, but I think that it is only possible with a blade weapon, and I have a hammer. Gamil is going to hang back and see what the rest of the group is doing, as not to risk his clumsiness causing the creatures to awaken.

[Alethan]

Not trying to meta-game too much, but since this is a strategy thread: I would be laying the smack down ("coup de grace") on the lizards, but I think that it is only possible with a blade weapon, and I have a hammer. Gamil is going to hang back and see what the rest of the group is doing, as not to risk his clumsiness causing the creatures to awaken.

I don't see strategy discussion as metagaming, any more than I see OOC discussion as metagaming.

Metagaming is when you make your character do something in-game that is based on information there is no way your character should know.

For example, the party splits up. Alf, Bill, and Carl go west. Derek, Erica, and Fritz go east. The DM splits posts up into two threads. Some time later, Team ABC runs into some trouble and is on the verge of dying. Fritz suddenly decides to retrace his steps and go check on Team ABC to see how they're doing.

That is metagaming. (How I see it, anyway.)

Talking strategy in the strategy is just that - talking strategy. It's the replacement for conversations at the gaming table. It's the unwritten small talk conversations the characters have as they're walking over hill and dale on their way to the dungeon or while sitting around the fire at night.

OOC discussion is rules talk between players or between player and GM. It is friendly reminders about some bit of information the party found out earlier and now needs to apply to a situation.

In your situation above, it isn't metagaming for your character to say, "Can someone coup de grace those lizards? All I have is a warhammer."

[Dogma]

I whole heartedly agree with Alethan assessment of stategery talk, OOC, and meta-gaming.

And for the record, I don't see that it would be any harder to coupe de grace an incapacitated foe by smashing their head with a hammer that it would be to slit their throats with a blade.

Maybe a bit messier, but not really any harder.

[mithrandir138]

I can't tell if I disagree with you or not If I do, it isn't violently. You kinda confused me a bit, let me 'splain.

Metagaming is when you make your character do something in-game that is based on information there is no way your character should know.
.....
In your situation above, it isn't metagaming for your character to say, "Can someone coup de grace those lizards? All I have is a warhammer."

Here's how I see it: Gamil would not know that the game rules say that only blades can be used to kill things while asleep. So, to me, that would be metagaming even though it is said "in character". It would be different if it were based on some sort of normal physics or common sense, but this particular thing is very much a rules-based restriction. You can definitely mash someone's skull with a hammer if they are defenseless and asleep.

To me, saying "Can I get a heal?!??!" OOC is metagaming. I would definitely say something to a player about this if this was said "at the table" in a real game. IMHO that kind of play is part of what is taking this hobby to bad places. Saying, in character, screaming in agony: "I am badly wounded, <CLERIC> please come help me!" is totally fine. Saying "I am down to 1 HP, I need a heal!", to me, is metagaming and has no place at the table. Mostly because the concept of HP is a game mechanic, and not something that a character would have any concept of. When you asked for a heal before, you were obviously asleep, and could not do this. Working through how healing would work in game, like we did, I think is totally fine because it needed to be determined.

Again, this is just my opinion -- I have no problem with your opinion, but I will give you a hard time for metagaming because.. well... I just will For the record, I am totally guilty of metagaming, and I have no problem with people giving me guff about it. I should be more aware of it and try to do things more "in character".

[mithrandir138]

I whole heartedly agree with Alethan assessment of stategery talk, OOC, and meta-gaming.

And for the record, I don't see that it would be any harder to coupe de grace an incapacitated foe by smashing their head with a hammer that it would be to slit their throats with a blade.

Maybe a bit messier, but not really any harder.

Again, just sharing my opinion. Dogma's the DM, we play by his rules

I agree about skull mashin'. Is that your ruling? It's OK?

[Makofan]

I am a meta-gamer by nature, but I am attempting to eliminate doing that while in this very fun group. So, if you see me doing it, by all means catch me and explain the best way to do it - I love learning new tricks and ways of doing things.

[mithrandir138]

I am a meta-gamer by nature, but I am attempting to eliminate doing that while in this very fun group. So, if you see me doing it, by all means catch me and explain the best way to do it - I love learning new tricks and ways of doing things.

While I dislike it and feel like I can spot it when I see it, I am totally guilty of it as well. Feel free to correct me, as well. I don't always practice what a preach

[Dogma]

I make a distinction between "metagaming" and bringing game mechanics into the game (via the "I'm down to 1HP, come heal me.")

The first is trying to effect the outcomes in the game by applying knowledge the PC wouldn't have, as given my Alethan's example of the split party.

The latter is just poor RPing. It should be pointed out, but to me much less of an offense.

[mithrandir138]

I make a distinction between "metagaming" and bringing game mechanics into the game (via the "I'm down to 1HP, come heal me.")

The first is trying to effect the outcomes in the game by applying knowledge the PC wouldn't have, as given my Alethan's example of the split party.

The latter is just poor RPing. It should be pointed out, but to me much less of an offense.

Yep, I also agreed with the split the party example of metagaming, as well. I just forgot to say so.

In response to your point about "poor RPing": Fair enough.

[Alethan]

Here's how I see it: Gamil would not know that the game rules say that only blades can be used to kill things while asleep. So, to me, that would be metagaming even though it is said "in character". It would be different if it were based on some sort of normal physics or common sense, but this particular thing is very much a rules-based restriction. You can definitely mash someone's skull with a hammer if they are defenseless and asleep.

Yeah, I don't think our definitions of metagaming are the same. It sounds like you're saying anything that isn't "role-playing" is metagaming.

That's not at all how I see it. I think having to describe every single action and to dialog every single discussion IC in fake medieval prose is cumbersome. It isn't something I do, just like I don't LARP when I'm sitting at a gaming table. I think OOC talk and strategic discussion is an equally important part of a PbP game; without them, the pace of the game would be terribly sluggish. And in PbP, a game that is too sluggish doesn't last very long. (We have several examples of that on this forum.)

These additional communication methods give players a way of saying "Hey, I need a heal" without having to type out (or saying aloud), "Egads, but these injuries are slowing me down. Brother Maynard, could you perhaps tend my wounds with your divine healing skills?"

Back to your example, though, why is it unreasonable for your dwarf to know/understand that he can or cannot quickly kill a sleeping foe with his non-bladed weapon? He is a dwarven fighter. This is something he is trained to know. If you as a player don't know a rule, then how is it Metagaming to pose a question in the OOC, Rules, or Strategy thread for a rule clarification? And then, after getting that clarification, having your character act accordingly?

e.g.
A player is about to make his dwarf character perform a coup de grace on the sleeping lizard, but he isn't sure if the rules allow that with a warhammer.
In the Rules thread, the player asks the DM if a coup de grace can be performed with a warhammer. The DM says yes, it can.
In the Game thread, the player writes, "Gloin performs a coup de grace on the sleeping lizard with his warhammer." He is, after all, a dwarven fighter. He knows just where to strike a sleeping foe with his hefty iron hammer to kill it with one blow.

I don't see anything at all wrong with that sequence of events.

If the answer from the GM had been, "No, you cannot perform a coup de grace with a hammer," then your dwarven fighter understands that, because the results of such attempts are unreliable (hammer blows are easily deflected, giant lizard skin is too tough, the body is in the wrong position, etc.), it is unwise to attempt a coup de grace with a warhammer and thus asks the elf to do it with his pointy rapier.

I don't think that is misplaced information. It is something I would expect that type of character to know, whatever the ruling is.

Again, this is just my opinion -- I have no problem with your opinion, but I will give you a hard time for metagaming because.. well... I just will For the record, I am totally guilty of metagaming, and I have no problem with people giving me guff about it. I should be more aware of it and try to do things more "in character".

I would advise against continually giving someone a hard time because their opinion of metagaming differs from yours. It implies the opposite of, "I have no problem with your opinion" and hardly seems respectful. Just because you're open to anyone pointing an error out to you, that doesn't mean everyone else is OK with you pointing out every minor error (or, in this case, difference of opinion) to them. It is for similar reasons that one doesn't point out every grammatical error they see in a post.

[mithrandir138]

I would advise against continually giving someone a hard time because their opinion of metagaming differs from yours. It implies the opposite of, "I have no problem with your opinion" and hardly seems respectful. Just because you're open to anyone pointing an error out to you, that doesn't mean everyone else is OK with you pointing out every minor error (or, in this case, difference of opinion) to them. It is for similar reasons that one doesn't point out every grammatical error they see in a post.

I think we're closer on opinion than you might think, and maybe I am misusing the term metagaming. Regardless, I in no way meant to badger or irritate you in a hurtful manner, it was meant as playful banter; the same way you would "crack wise" with a friend. I assumed the smileys would indicate as such, my bad. I will tone it down.

[Alethan]

I would advise against continually giving someone a hard time because their opinion of metagaming differs from yours. It implies the opposite of, "I have no problem with your opinion" and hardly seems respectful. Just because you're open to anyone pointing an error out to you, that doesn't mean everyone else is OK with you pointing out every minor error (or, in this case, difference of opinion) to them. It is for similar reasons that one doesn't point out every grammatical error they see in a post.

I think we're closer on opinion than you might think, and maybe I am misusing the term metagaming. Regardless, I in no way meant to badger or irritate you in a hurtful manner, it was meant as playful banter; the same way you would "crack wise" with a friend. I assumed the smileys would indicate as such, my bad. I will tone it down.

Please don't misunderstand. That was really meant as a general statement, not a personal one. People handle criticism differently. Some have no problem with it. Many handle it rather poorly.

Personally, trying to call out my metagaming didn't bother me, because I don't think i was metagaming. But it generated discussion. I like the sharing of ideas and the debate of differences; that resulted in thought on my part and added content to an interesting topic. (Unfortunately, it's probably in the wrong place; I could have sworn there was a Metagaming thread somewhere under the RPG Discussion section, but I can't find it now...)

That said, keep in mind just because you tag a statement with a smiley face, that doesn't mean someone can't still take offense by it. Some RPG players might take offense to the metagame accusation no matter how many smiley faces and lols you put after the jest.


(The was because I'm not a big fan of someone quoting me and then changing the content of my quote. I imagine that bothers me because of my writing background and the necessity to attribute statements accurately and properly; I doubt most anyone else would have given it a second thought.)

[mithrandir138]

Please don't misunderstand. That was really meant as a general statement, not a personal one. People handle criticism differently. Some have no problem with it. Many handle it rather poorly.
....

It's all good on this side, man. I was just making sure I didn't piss you off because you thought I was being overly serious or really criticizing you.

In general, I try to have the "F(_)ck 'em if they can't take a joke" attitude when gaming. But if someone doesn't understand it's a joke or in jest is a whole other situation. I wanted to make sure that you knew I was just ribbin' you and truly didn't mean to offend. I also enjoy the exchange of ideas and a healthy debate as long as people don't get all bent out of shape (and it seems like you didn't, so I believe we're good). I am guilty of getting bent out of shape, too, so I understand that happens sometimes, but: F(_)ck *ME* if *I* can't take a joke!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7077/7048 ... 9bf2_o.jpg

And again, that's a joke too...

[Alethan]

I also enjoy the exchange of ideas and a healthy debate as long as people don't get all bent out of shape (and it seems like you didn't, so I believe we're good).

Like I said, it made me think.

I enjoy anything that gets me thinking.

We SHOULD create a Metagaming thread down in the RPG section...

[mithrandir138]

We SHOULD create a Metagaming thread down in the RPG section...

I'm not throwing that nerdfight-inducing grenade, go for it. However, I will fuel the conversation.

EDIT: assuming you mean a metagaming discussion in the general discussion thread. If not, then disregard.