Quote from: Omega;827846My experience is that posibly more than half the playerbase does role play. And even role play not acting on OOC info. But the ones that dont just tend to stand out in retrospect.

All it takes is one OOC player in a group to ruin a game for everyone else.

Yeah, it's like everybody trying to enjoy a movie in the theater except one guy keeps letting his cell phone ring.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;827836I just role-play what my character would or wouldn't know about them. I am the rare exception to the general rule that most players don't role-play.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;827945All it takes is one OOC player in a group to ruin a game for everyone else.

You must find it difficult to find a game group you enjoy.

sorry, but shall we have a thread now in defense of cheating?  Of not roleplaying?

In many definitions, Metagaming is considered the opposite of Roleplaying...in a roleplaying game.

I get that things relax, that the unconscious kicks in, that some people want to play a war game with elements of roleplay, but at the end....

At least for me...
 RP and metagaming are two ends of a continuum.

Quote from: Matt;827420A very good reason not to use entries from the Monster Manual and make up your own instead. I don't even own Monster Manual. Never saw the point.

The rot grubs being described in the MM is irrelevant to the example: What's happening is that the players are gaining an expertise in dealing with a particular type of problem and then they're applying that knowledge regardless of what character they're playing.

Deadly situations are an extreme example of this, but it can apply to stuff like standard operating procedures: Putting the fighters in front may be a group norm that transcends a particular set of characters, for example.

To boil this down: There are certain "best practices" which can be learned for any particular game. Is it, in fact, desirable to "roleplay" relearning the most basic of these practices every single time you roll up a new character? Does every single character need to discover "10 foot poles are useful" or "I should make sure I've got a firewall on my computer"? Or is there a certain level of metagame expertise which it's OK to reflect into your characters once you've gained it?

My opinion is that D&D was originally designed as a game, rather than an improvisational theatre experience. Knowing how to defeat a troll or rot grubs, to my mind, is learning how to play the game. It's not really all that different from knowing how to screw everyone with the Monopoly card in Settlers of Catan, or how to castle in chess.

Now, I don't have anything against RPGs as a relative of improvisational theatre, but in my experience the people who most disparage this kind of meta gaming are also the people who believe that everything they can do should be listed on their character sheets.  It's a different approach to the game, and one that brings its own weaknesses. It also seems to lead to rules like "social combat", which is a pet peeve of mine, and other things where players surrender their own creativity to a list of numbers and powers on a character sheet.

I agree that the correct response to a player who reads the Monster Manual and plans for all the puzzle monsters is to invent new puzzle monsters. It's also important to make sure your players are on the same page with regards to this kind of encounter - players with different expectations may have profoundly negative reactions to character death and difficult encounters.

That said, there are forms of meta gaming that are bad. Players who buy the adventure and read through it in advance, so they can "win" every time, need to find DMs who have the time and inclination to write original material all the time, or else they need to admit to themselves that they're not really playing a game so much as engaging in a type of fantasy ego-stroking.

PCs with secrets are another tricky area. Depending on the group's expectations, it can be a lot of fun to have a PC who is secretly a vampire or doppelgänger, and spring this on the group. On the other hand, this will only piss some people off, and for many groups it's more enjoyable when the PLAYERS all know about the PC's secret, but the other PCs are ignorant of it. In the latter group, using metagame knowledge to screw over another PC is crappy, too, but the explicit social contract will stop all but the most hardcore dickheads from doing this.

I simply don't see the need for such practices.

Either use skills to identify the monsters, and give the players an "Adventurer's Companion" - a description of common knowledge of most common dangers that adventurers face, in form of tips and rumours they picked from taverns, or roll for Intelligence when they encounter something (in AD&D).

That is something I think that'll really show between those who started in RPGs from wargames, and those who started in RPGs from a scratch - the use of such trap monsters, that are obviously set to catch the new players.

Quote from: Rincewind1;828126That is something I think that'll really show between those who started in RPGs from wargames, and those who started in RPGs from a scratch - the use of such trap monsters, that are obviously set to catch the new players.

Which group likes trap monsters?

Quote from: Bren;828127Which group likes trap monsters?

Both might use them, but I'd say wargamers'd prefer the approach of "fail and learn", while the latter would probably give some sort of a roll to indicate a solution before the trap is sprung.

Quote from: Rincewind1;828128Both might use them, but I'd say wargamers'd prefer the approach of "fail and learn", while the latter would probably give some sort of a roll to indicate a solution before the trap is sprung.

I find monsters whose method of attack is designed to take advantage of the typical tactics of dungeon crawling e.g. rot grubs attacking the character who listens at the door, mimics, etc. are just sucky monsters. They are the GM equivalent of the player who wants to play the genre savvy rebel in what was supposed to be a genre emulating game.

And I came to D&D via wargames and a our group's de novo reading of the Little Brown Books and Chainmail.

Quote from: Bren;828130I find monsters whose method of attack is designed to take advantage of the typical tactics of dungeon crawling e.g. rot grubs attacking the character who listens at the door, mimics, etc. are just sucky monsters. They are the GM equivalent of the player who wants to play the genre savvy rebel in what was supposed to be a genre emulating game.

And I came to D&D via wargames and a our group's de novo reading of the Little Brown Books and Chainmail.

There are always exceptions, and it is merely my opinion of course - I might be proved wrong during the course of this thread a couple of times. But I'd like to ask - did you harbour a distaste for them early on, after a say, game or three or five, or only disliked them after some lengthier experience with the game?

Quote from: Rincewind1;828131There are always exceptions, and it is merely my opinion of course - I might be proved wrong during the course of this thread a couple of times. But I'd like to ask - did you harbour a distaste for them early on, after a say, game or three or five, or only disliked them after some lengthier experience with the game?

Well there weren't any creatures like that in the original OD&D rules. Those sorts of 'gotcha critters' first appeared as articles in TSR's The Strategic Review or in the Dragon Magazine. I didn't like them when they first appeared, so I never added those critters to the games I ran. Fortunately they didn't see much use by the other folks in our larger group who DMed either.

The way I do it is that if everyone knows about a monster, then players can use their knowledge in play. However, if it is a rare monster that none of the PCs have encountered before, then the players cannot use their knowledge.

Quote from: Rincewind1;828126Either use skills to identify the monsters, and give the players an "Adventurer's Companion" - a description of common knowledge of most common dangers that adventurers face, in form of tips and rumours they picked from taverns, or roll for Intelligence when they encounter something (in AD&D).

Player:  "I roll to see what I know."  [Success.]  GM, reading out of the monster entry:  "You know X."  Player:  "Okay, I do X."

My goal in life is to never again be on either side of this conversation.  So, no, skills or Int checks are not my desired solution.  And an "Adventurer's Companion" for me would be... what the players actually know.  They don't need me to gate-keep it by typing out what I remember they know and handing it back to them.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;828086The rot grubs being described in the MM is irrelevant to the example: What's happening is that the players are gaining an expertise in dealing with a particular type of problem and then they're applying that knowledge regardless of what character they're playing.

Deadly situations are an extreme example of this, but it can apply to stuff like standard operating procedures: Putting the fighters in front may be a group norm that transcends a particular set of characters, for example.

To boil this down: There are certain "best practices" which can be learned for any particular game. Is it, in fact, desirable to "roleplay" relearning the most basic of these practices every single time you roll up a new character? Does every single character need to discover "10 foot poles are useful" or "I should make sure I've got a firewall on my computer"? Or is there a certain level of metagame expertise which it's OK to reflect into your characters once you've gained it?

Thank you.  That was everything I was trying to say, said better.

Quote from: Rincewind1;828126Either use skills to identify the monsters, and give the players an "Adventurer's Companion" - a description of common knowledge of most common dangers that adventurers face, in form of tips and rumours they picked from taverns, or roll for Intelligence when they encounter something (in AD&D).

That is something I think that'll really show between those who started in RPGs from wargames, and those who started in RPGs from a scratch - the use of such trap monsters, that are obviously set to catch the new players.

See, this is exactly the difference in approach I am talking about. What you're suggesting is, to me, a lot like playing a game of solitaire or chess on the computer, and clicking "suggest move" every turn.  That's an exaggeration, but it means you're probably more into the "roleplaying" side of roleplaying games than the "game" side.

See, learning how to defeat "trap" monsters like rot grubs or whatever IS part of the game, at least for a certain old-school approach. From this perspective, the game should NEVER just be about rolling against a stat or a special ability to achieve a goal. You roll because you're taking a chance, and the more skilled you are AS A PLAYER, the less frequently you need to roll the dice at all.

Again, neither approach is "better" than the other, but they lead to very different game experiences. Let me compare the two using a truncated version of the opening sequence to Raiders of the Lost Ark...

RPG as Improv Theatre:

DM: You are exploring the cave. You come to a wide corridor with patterned stones on the floor, alternating rectangular and diamond-shaped.

IJ:  Okay, I want to use my Detect Traps skill.

(someone rolls the dice)

DM:  Okay, you passed the check.  You realize that the diamond shaped stones are pressure plates that will trigger a trap.

IJ:  Can I use Disarm Traps to disarm them?

DM: No, there's no obvious way to disarm them.

IJ: Okay, I want to roll Dexterity to walk across the floor without stepping on the pressure plates.

DM: Okay, roll.

IJ: I got... a 17, including modifiers!

DM: Okay, you succeed. You come to a stone pedestal with a golden statue on it.  It is the idol you are searching for!

IJ: I check for traps!

(someone rolls dice)

DM:  Yes, it's trapped.  If the idol is removed, it will trigger a trap.

IJ:  Okay, I roll Disarm Traps.

(someone rolls)

DM:  Okay, that's a failure. A giant boulder crashes through the wall, threatening to crush you unless you run away!

IJ: Okay, I want to roll my Sprint skill!

---------

RPG as Game:

DM: You are exploring the cave. You come to a wide corridor with patterned stones on the floor, alternating rectangular and diamond-shaped.

IJ: Hmm, can I use Detect Traps?

DM: Maybe, but you'll have to tell me what you're trying to do. It's not a "detect trap" radar that you can just turn on to scan an area, right?

IJ:  Fair enough. Are there any poles lying around?  I lost my 10 foot pole.

DM:  Sure, there are some old sticks and branches lying around.

IJ:  Okay, I take a long one and use it to poke one of the diamond-shaped tiles. I'm trying to stay a safe distance back.

DM:  Alright. A dart shoots out of one of the corridor walls and drives into the side of the stick with a thump.

IJ:  Crap, I bet that's poisoned!  Can I try to cross the floor without stepping on any diamond shaped stones?

DM:  Sure, now that you know where the traps are, it's fairly easy to avoid them, as long as you're willing to take your time.

IJ:  Okay, I go across cautiously.

DM:  You make it across. You come to a stone pedestal with a golden statue on it.  It is the idol you are searching for!

IJ:  Excellent!  I examine the pedestal.  Any traps?

DM:  Nothing obvious. You can roll your Detect Traps if you spend a few minutes checking it out.  That may give you a clue about the trap. Or, you can just tell me what precautions you take.

IJ: Okay, I do that. I spend a few minutes looking for traps.

(someone rolls)

DM:  Okay, it looks like the pedestal has a small gap all the way around the base, like it can slide up or down.

IJ:  I bet that it sets off a trap when the idol is removed. Okay, I grab my bag of sand and I try to empty enough so that it's the same weight as the idol.

DM: Okay, but since you don't know the exact weight, I'm going to roll a D6. On a 1, you guessed too light, and on a 6, you guessed too heavy. Fair enough?

IJ: Alright, that sounds fair.

(DM rolls behind the screen)

DM: Okay, you think you've got it.

IJ: Cool, I quickly swap the bag of sand and the idol!

DM:  You swap them, and it seems for a moment that you've got it... when you hear a sound like stone scraping on stone from the pedestal!  (DM lifts screen, showing a "1" on the d6)

IJ:  Oh crap, what happens?  I get ready to dodge!

DM: Dodging won't be enough... a giant boulder crashes through the wall, threatening to crush you!

-------------------

In the second example, the DM would probably have allowed the player to disarm the idol trap without a roll if he had suggested jamming slivers of wood into the gap around the base of the pedestal, or had used a more reliable method of determining the idol's weight. In the first example, doing that kind of stuff would have given a bonus on the Disarm Traps roll, at best.

I want to emphasize that there isn't one way that's superior - this is really a matter of preference - but having traps, puzzles, and monsters that rely on the PLAYERS' cleverness rather than the PCs' skills and powers is a legitimate way to play the game. Claiming that it's unnecessary or dickish means that you're probably not acknowledging the appeal of that play style to many people.