The dumb blog you are linking to is wrong, of course

You probably get that feeling because of intense personal biases against the author, not because you've made a logical conclusion grounded in any sort of sensible reading of the article. I say that because he makes a point that metagame has become a dirty word in the P&P community because of shrieking dumbasses who do not understand that we are human beings huddling around a table to tell stories of pretend, and a certain level of metagaming is both expected and required. The "Strike that from the record" argument's purpose is to illustrate this reality.

>I'm not giving any clicks to whoever this faggot is.

Fair enough.

pastebin.com/YKjYXG8f

>pastebin.com/YKjYXG8f
Obliged.

>theangrygm
Sounds like the exact opposite person I'd want advice from just going by the name.

In a weird way, the players and PCs are always metagaming.

PCs rarely insult each other and fight. And PCs usually respond very friendly to other PCs and quickly ally together in a group, and very rarely split this group.

Not splitting the group (and the GM's attention and time) is also metagaming, in a way. A single PC hogging the spotlight and being a drama queen will get slapped back in line to let the GM shine on the other PCs (metagame).

This is very necessary and isn't a bad thing, imo.
I usually brush off most metagaming as "a lucky spirit watches over your PC" kinda bullshit as the PC hears a weird click while opening a chest and dives away from it, or if the player (not the PC) has a great hunch that I might set a bear trap in an ankle-deep puddle in the dungeon.

>IP count didn't go up

I understand you don't like that guy, but why on earth are you sticking around the thread then? The purpose of the thread is, ostensibly, to discuss the point made by the author.

The idea that every problem in a group is entirely caused by the GM, and nothing tells that players can just be asswipes.

Sticking around? That was my first comment after reading the OP. Have you ever heard of opening another tab, Sherlock?

Again,

>IP count didn't go up

I don't know who you're trying to fool, friendo, but carry on.

Well, of course they can be asswipes, but it's the GM's job to *not* have asswipes in his game, is it not? Player management and recruitment is as much his job as actually running the session. Your game being sabotaged because you did not properly vet players is plainly you not vetting well enough.

Alright, I'll read this bit-by-bit and address it as it goes. I'm genuinely curious, and bored.

>“screaming gamer herpes”
Technically correct, but tasteless.

>f$&%.
No. Please don't. It looks childish. Swear or do not, there is no "sorta". I'll refrain from touching on this again.

>[...] metagaming is an issue I take very seriously. [...] It isn't really a THING by itself.
OK, presumably you'll explain.

>Meta is a prefix
You're correct in this paragraph, and the one directly following it.

>[...] the game is a shared, noncompetitive experience.
Yes, I agree. I'm with you on this paragraph.

>the word metagame has become co-opted by screaming GMing dips$&%s who needed a word to yell at players with
>BUT, the problem is it now has such a negative connotation that you can’t use the word for anything OTHER than pissing and moaning about players you don’t like.
Yes and no. It sort of depends on if you can make the distinction and explain your reasoning to your players. Cooperative experience, right? As a counterpoint, presumably English-speaking people discuss the wine Cato Negro without being labelled racist, since it's a different matter?

> In this example, the thief character is secretly evil and secretly steals from the party.
Now, here's where we'll disagree. Didn't you say some two paragraphs before something on
"shared, noncompetitive experience"? Wouldn't this be a violation on that? Surely, that'll eventually be caught, and would make for interesting conflict if everyone's agreed on the tone of the game, but if it isn't? That this player simply doesn't care or understand that this'll upset the others, or does it specifically to upset them? That would, in my eyes, put the player at fault. And these people do exist.

Continued.

Aye, or hell, if you're running a dungeon-crawling game you could just assume that the players are competent at adventuring. Either way could work

Groups nominate GMs all the time. Playing dice isn't a mystical Kingdom you fag. In AW clones the GM is only there for hooks. Players often tolerate faults in the other players or the GM because they're sitting together in a room. Openly kicking players out can kill a group as soon as strengthen it. Are you on the same "GM = God" power trip as the moron who wrote this article focusing solely on what the GM's faults are?

>IP count didn't go up
fuck off.

Also, when you have PCs do full-military-spetsnaz tactics in 6-second timespans and casters casting specific spells within 5ft accuracy and maximum coverage, you just godda go with it (and let your minions/opfor do the same to them).

>Are you on the same "GM = God" power trip as the moron who wrote this article focusing solely on what the GM's faults are?

What on earth are you blathering about? The simple fact is that the GM is responsible for the game he is running. Do you disagree with this premise?

>fuck off.

Sorry friendo, but I calls em as I sees em. Didn't mean to put a damper on your ebin samefagging act.

Particularly when it's the explicitly first fight that a team of PCs (but not a team of players) is doing.

I always do my best to avoid metagaming as a player, and mitigate it as much as possible as a GM.

I don't even have to read the article to know that homeboy is a raging winged faggot.

Creepy efficient.
I personally love good combat players and perfect kill teams. A well oiled machine that you can throw a few spanners at without anyone being a little bitch about it.

>try to read it
>pic related
>long as shit
>third paragraph:
>The thing is, every so often, I say something perfectly innocent and totally true and people get REALLY pissed off about it. To the point where I usually end up being blocked or blocking a few of the more raging psychotics on social media. Sometimes, I even get some hilarious death threats. But that’s the internet and nerds for you.

I can't do it, but he's almost certainly a smug faggot saying things to intentionally piss people off because it makes him feel relevant and big.

>implying my players are even capable of metagaming or that it would have any measurable impact on the game.

The joys of not running D&D or OSR and making your own settings/campaigns.

I'll take no self awareness for 20, Alex.

....

Metagaming is using out of character knowledge to determine what your characters would do, right?

pretty sure, you can do that.

Particularly if you design a setting in which big friendly spiders exists and are common, and the PCs' first action on seeing one is to draw their weapons and attack.

In character, they wouldn't have done that.

>The other form of metagame occurs when the players know something about the way the game works and use that to their advantage.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and claim that we're in different schools of roleplaying. I like the characters, and like any good character from any medium, I like them to be a believable person. So with this troll, of course the character shouldn't automatically "know" what the player does.

>[ANGRY RANT INTENSIFIES]

>[...] the wizard immediately responds by using fire-based attacks.
In this paragraph, the GM truly is at fault. The wizard's excuses are valid (although a Knowledge roll on the account of the reading may be called for).

We don't know the context, though. Is this the dude who read the adventure and stabbed the traitor when they met him and just treat it as their personal fantasy sandbox? I could understand the rage then, but you could also handle it as adults.

>making a choice based on information that SOMEONE ELSE thinks the character shouldn’t have
Anecdotal as it seems, neither does the offending player. They'll have flimsy excuses at best in my experience.

>I mean, you’re wrong. You’re a dumba$&.
Gee, thanks. You sure showed me.

>The issue is that it is IMPOSSIBLE not to metagame.
True. As so kindly pointed out. There's usually agreements of things that are off-limits between everybody involved. This is, in some way, metagaming. But with the intent to improve the experience for everyone.

>the “strike it from the record”
You're looking for the Exclusionary rule in US law, which has its exceptions. It's a complex issue, but it's been a problem since forever, essentially. The lack of context to the crime really hampers the example. And I suspect this'll bring me to an important point later.

Continued.

You know, as amazing as the blog-response registered forum post-dissection format is, what if you just read the entirety of the article *first*, and *then* responded to the crux of its point?

It would both take less time for you to compose, and less time for anyone else to read, and further make a greater focus on communicating more useful information.

>Metagaming is using out of character knowledge to determine what your characters would do, right?
It's more using out of game knowledge to determine the best way to go about things. Thus the 'gaming' half of metagaming.

Attacking friendly npcs isn't metagaming, it's just stupidity. Seducing the barmaid because you know that she has info because you read the campaign module is. Or choosing not the kill the BBEG Lt. because the same module gives you a benefit to not kill them. Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, when your character would know nothing of Islam.

not that guy but it is the responsibility of the adults in the room not to be asswipes to each other and come to agreements mutually. the GM is the one who decides on the rules in the game if need be, he's not the godking of all that exists in the group. So yes, it is a stupid premise. If you need the GM to come down with iron-fisted rulings, then in the same vein as the article, you have bigger problems than the GM.

the GM isn't entirely responsible for the game at all, in fact the players are more responsible for the story than the GM, the players decide whether the story ends with their corpses being butchered by goblins or they are victoriously selling goblin ears back in town
the GM can write all he wants, he can write an entire novel revolving around a magic orb that sets the group off on a crazy adventure as it guides them to a magic kingdom, only to have the party sell the orb to a hobo for 5 copper, its really up to the players how the story develops

and to go along with this, the players can also have control over intrusive metagaming and just generally being assholes, that isn't the GM's fault

Jeopardy categories never go below $200.

First 10 minutes into a new campaign,
Party encounters a monster.
It is a new monster so I describe it in detail.

Player says "Out of character. what monster is that. Tell me. I want to see it in the monster manual."

According to that blog I am a shitty DM and it is my fault that the player metagamed.

I know how bad metagaming can be because I've run and played Shadowrun. All of my players have been GMs or players in other campaigns and we've all run the same modules, everyone knows what's up when they meet Harlequin. It's not a big deal if your players aren't actively looking to fuck you over and not try and approach the story in their own way consistent with the characters they've made. If they want to be dicks and just cheatcode their way to the end of the mystery, then they're only cheating themselves and the most vindictive thing I'll do is not award them karma for it. I'd never be so petty as to just call them out and throw a tantrum during the game.

>when your character would know nothing of Islam.

Says who?

This is another relevant part of the article that deserves emphasis. When you are playing a character in a roleplaying game, you are simplifying decades of culture and growth into stat blocks onto a piece of paper. A lot of things get glossed over, and by the same token, a lot of assumptions can get made either way about what a character may or may not know.

Islam is a large and organized religion adhered to by millions across the world. You don't have to be a sand monkey to have heard of it or know a thing or two regarding it.

>B-but internet!

Do you think western people around the time of the Crusades just knew nothing at all of Islam or something? Culture is a factor in every character's life, and it is hardly a stretch to assume a character can justify some knowledge of common things.

This is addressed by the article, and put simply, it is further evidence that whining about the metagame is a waste of everyone's time.

>And that is why any attempt to control metagaming is utter horses$&%.
Alright, I'll get to it. You're technically right, but miss the point entirely. The point of an RPG is for everyone to enjoy it, right? Then shouldn't the level of metagaming be agreed upon before so that everyone can enjoy it? There's some great fun to be had in making the wrong decision and it coming back to bite you in the ass later. It'll make the story feel more believable and less like bad fanfiction. Conflict is interesting, generally, and nobody succeeds all the time.

>metagaming is obviously bad behavior
>metagaming isn’t ACTUALLY a problem
I've made my point above. I won't repeat myself.

>If you start having problems with metagaming, it’s usually the result of some other problem in your game.
In a way. You've either failed to communicate with your players what is acceptable, or you chose the wrong players.

>“why the f$&% did the GM allow the paladin and the thief into the same game?”
I don't see the problem if they're both okay with it. Again, talk to the players. Make characters simultaneously and talk about what you want with the game.

>See, the problem in most player-on-player metagaming is secrets.
Yes.
>The players have secrets
That everybody knows and pretends to not know. How interesting would Star Wars be if Darth Vader's identity wasn't ever revealed? Make it a part of the story, and talk to the players about it. You're supposed to work together, right?

>The Paladin and the Thief scenario actually occurs because one of the players is in the party under false pretenses.
THANK YOU, FINALLY.

>But a few of the players decided their characters were secretive a%&holes and didn’t share their information.
Talk about it. I'll not bring this up again.

Continued (Feel free to ignore, will post tl;dr)

I'll do that next time. I wanted to try the dissection style, and I've dealt with this bullshit IRL, so it was a bit personal.

>Player says "Out of character. what monster is that. Tell me. I want to see it in the monster manual."

"I designed it myself, you won't find it in any published splat."

>"Then show me your sheet for it, I want to see its stats and abilities."

What do now, user? Do you, like me, feel a special repulsion for players who want info from behind the screen? It feels like a violation to me, breaking the sacred trust that the screen epitomizes.

I haven't bothered to read the article, so I'm being a faggot, but:

Metagaming is a problem. It's not just when people know things that they shouldn't - that sort of shit will come up OOC. It's when they act on that information.

You might be able to get away with knowledge about how to fight certain monsters, saying you got lucky on a first attack or that you have previous experience. It makes the game a lot tougher if you know that a monster is immune to anything but magic, but have to act like you don't know that. But if you're using it to quickly solve plots, or call out NPCs on things that the players couldn't possibly know, that's a dick move.

>Says who?
Says the player when they make the character.

Or are you telling me that a Samurai or Shinto monk would know the inner workings of Islam? I guess a Cherokee warrior would too.

Most people don't know the basics of Islam, even with the internet.

Most people don't even know the details of their own faith.

>the GM isn't entirely responsible for the game at all

A game can happen without an individual player.

A game cannot happen without a GM to take the reigns.

Your assertion is clearly wrong from the get-go, and therefore it is a waste of time for me to read the conclusions you've drawn based upon it.

>If you need the GM to come down with iron-fisted rulings,

What?

If a player is ruining a game, it is the GM's job to resolve it by using player management skills. Vetoing character concepts that threaten to cause problems, or even ejecting truly unruly ones. Are you going to sit there and pretend that this responsibility does not fall on the GM's shoulders?

Running the game is the GM's responsibility, and anything that hampers his running of the game, yes, including players that ruin it, are evidence of his failure to properly control his game, full stop. I can tell you've never GMed, but GMing goes quite beyond making a basic premise for an adventure and making rulings based on dice results and skill modifiers, I assure you.

You wrote the article didn't you?

>Or are you telling me that a Samurai or Shinto monk would know the inner workings of Islam?

At no point did you define it as "the inner workings." You, quote-and-fucking-unquote, said "use your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, when your character would know nothing of Islam."

This is what I mean, and what the article addresses. You're assuming the worst case scenario because you really want your point to stand. I'm assuming the best case scenario because it illustrates perfectly why this metagame whining is so pointless.

Sometimes, it's okay to just assume that the PC may have heard a legend about Trolls getting burned easily by fire, user. Because right now, you're perfectly illustrating my point. Absolutely fucking perfectly.

>take the reigns
*reins, friend.

It's a riding analogy, not a ruling analogy.

I do GM regularly, and our group decides on things, as a group. We've never had to outright veto or quash ideas because we can talk through them and reach a mutual understanding(and we've been playing for years) because we're fucking adults. The responsibility smoothly running a social get-together falls on the shoulders of all participants.
>I can tell you've never done this but there's more than just the rules
yes and that's the responsibility of the group, not one person. You talk as though your regular players have no real agency, so I'll make my own assumption and say you've never played with a good group if you think this sort of thing is a necessity. It is a social gathering first and foremost, where a game also takes place.

And to the other part of your post
>the game can run without an individual player, but not without the DM
it can run without you as the DM if your head is too far up your own arse and you are the one needing to be excised.

A game can't happen without players.

And a game CAN happen without a GM, there are systems designed around this concept.

>it can run without you as the DM if your head is too far up your own arse and you are the one needing to be excised.

As clever as you seem to think you are for making this comment, you've simply reinforced my point; for a game to occur, there must be a GM. No, it needn't necessarily be me, but I am not the one psychotically projecting a god-complex onto random people here. You are.

A game cannot exist without a GM. Which means there must be someone, an individual, who takes responsibility for the success and failure of that game. Full stop.

If you don't want players using out-of-game knowledge to win fights, don't throw them against monsters they're gonna know. You're the DM, make Trolls that are vulnerable to ice and let the players figure that out. Or make a whole new monster.

It's frustrating to know the solution to a problem and still make stupid plays because you're not "supposed" to know the solution. If I used lightning bolt instead of fireball on a troll because I didn't want to metagame, and then the Troll killed my wizard as a result, I'd be super-pissed!

>Fiasco
>A p&p game

I'm sure you'll namedrop some other hipster trash systems that nobody plays as well, but that's besides the point. To equate Fiasco, which comes to mind as the most popular example of the GMless game concept, to actual conventional roleplaying games, is absurd, and completely dilutes the meaning of the phrase "roleplaying game" in the Veeky Forums context.

I've said both basics and inner workings of Islam.

The vast majority of westerners know nothing about even the basics of Islam.

If I have a player who's background is in religious study or show that they lived in that area, fine. If they have their character study and learn about the specific subject as the game goes on, fine.

If they happen to be Muslim or have memorized the pillars themselves, but their characters are from the New World or even Eastern Europe, then their character would not suddenly have knowledge about Islam just because they met a Muslim in game.

>I TOLD THEM THAT! WHY DID THEY FEEL THE NEED TO KEEP SECRETS!?!?!!!?!
You've sort of defeated the point that his is all the GM. You told them and they are being assholes for no reason. Get new people.

>Challenge Yourself
All I'm going to put in this is that fire is a default "kill everything" since pretty much forever. If you've made the poor choice to put the troll in and really want to show off its defining feature, tough luck. Also, the opposite of "get new players" is also true. The players could just... walk out if the GM bullshits too much.

> that the vizier is ALWAYS evil
You seriously do this?

>The Realism Argument
You're mostly right, but I don't see why you're having a section on it. Act within the agreement according to your character.

>Hell, why not ASK the player to explain the knowledge.
You'll find my comment above.

>some people really get off on that creative story bulls$&%
Yeah, fuck off. Some of us wants a story about people and plots, not the amount of demi-humans a group of murderhobos killed on their way.

tl;dr: blogger rants about problems he could solve by talking to his players. Also argues that since Happy Meal water pistols aren't dangerous, you shouldn't take measures against monsoons and flooding.

Also, not doing that again.

>I've said both basics and inner workings of Islam.

>Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, when your character would know nothing of Islam.

No, you did not.

I am not going to respond to the rest of this post as it is clear you are simply backtracking at this point.

>I, the person who rests upon myself all responsibilities of the game to run perfectly as the master of ceremonies, who will heal every woe of the table and lead this stupid flock to a great game as I see fit, am not the one psychotically projecting a god-complex
>no, it is you, the one who says that a social gathering should be managed by everyone involved through mutual agreement. you are the one with the god-complex.

and of course,
>a game cannot exist without a GM
is different from
>a game cannot exist without a singular person on whom the responsibility of the success and failure of that game rests
I understand that you can't see that because again, your field of view is nothing but your colon, but no one person is responsible for the success of an informal social gathering to play a game. You conflate GM with god-emperor even if you can't see it, where that is just a running joke among most groups.

>I want to be able to metagame the blog
Also, are you really so pathetic you need to beg for money from Veeky Forums of all places?

A host is not "the god-emperor" for trying to run a successful dinner party. He is, however, responsible for the catering, the guest list, entertainment (if any), and numerous other factors that will, by and large, decide whether or not it is a successful dinner party or not.

Your exaggerations are scarcely worth responding to anymore.

>A game can happen without an individual player.
>A game cannot happen without a GM to take the reigns.

Just because the game can't happen without the GM doesn't mean that the GM is entirely responsible for everything in it.

Your argument relied on the phrase "an individual player". However we're not talking about an individual player. We're talking about players as a group. Without ANY players the GM doesn't have a game, and therefore the game requires a group of players.

As the first user expanded on, the players are responsible for their own attitudes to the game, for their own characters' actions, for cooperating with one another, and more. The only way of preventing this is with tyrannical DMing where actions the DM doesn't like are punished or forbidden, but this will quickly lose them players. You tried to swerve away from this when the other user brought it up here by claiming it was a waste of your time. However it is key to why your argument is wrong, and I suspect you already sense this, which is why you dodged it.

Your argument is essentially sophistry. It is the kind of asinine specious reasoning used by someone who's self-regard greatly outweighs their intelligence.

The first thing someone should know about Islam is its basics. A character who is able to use their knowledge of Islam to influence the opinion of a Muslim would know even more than the basics.

This isn't hard to understand pal. We get it, you want to justify your poor roleplaying, but this isn't the place or the way to do it.

But since you refuse to even be reasonable, we can just end this discussion now and you can go cry for alms somewhere else.

>I'm assuming the best case scenario because it illustrates perfectly why this metagame whining is so pointless.

That's textbook cherry-picking, user.

That's a bad analogy because a dinner party with catering, guest list, entertainment and numerous other factors is much more involved than an informal night of P&P RPG with friends, and I say that as someone who works on a setting for months at a time before GMing. It's a social gathering between people and it's not unreasonable to expect them to take part of the responsibility in its success.
The user I am arguing with says that it rests upon a single individual the success and failure of a game, which is retarded. Maybe that is the case in his group, but if that is what is required in his group then it's a shit group.

I know right?
RPG's are a two way street, I can craft an immersive world where the players interact in meaningful ways all day...
But only if they want and try to engage in it.

I read the article now and I am surprised by the conclusions he drew.
The solution to the troll problem is simple. You can't perfectly recreate that first dnd adventure you had when you were a kid and didn't know how to fight trolls. Remember that? When you fought and figured out how to defeat the troll? You felt pretty awesome and smart didn't you?

Well guess what? You will never have that experience again... with a troll.
You have solved it. You can't go back.

Make (or find) a new monster. Make a new challenge with a new solution.

>Without ANY players the GM doesn't have a game, and therefore the game requires a group of players.

Players are disposable. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but even a casual understanding of how numbers work will tell you it is true. A group is comprised of several players, but will only have one GM.

>As the first user expanded on, the players are responsible for their own attitudes to the game, for their own characters' actions, for cooperating with one another, and more. The only way of preventing this is with tyrannical DMing where actions the DM doesn't like are punished or forbidden, but this will quickly lose them players.

To address this point, because it is the only other point in this post worth addressing, a GM who finds his player's attitudes unconducive to a group activity is obliged to either fix those attitudes using tools such as pulling him aside and having a discussion right up to ejection from the game. Again, that is in fact part of his responsibility if he wants his game to keep running, because he is the director, the referee, and the manager.

Nobody said GMing was easy.

Now you're saying "the local elder" is in fact a Muslim?

Can you please take a moment to differentiate between what you think you've said, and what you've actually said?

As much so as to imply somebody is going to know absolutely nothing of a wide-spread religion, which is, again, the point. It can go either way, so shrieking "YOU CAN'T KNOW THE TROLL'S WEAK TO FIRE!" is just stupid.

This. At best you can mix things up, or have the solution be so specific you might not remember the details later. But who won't remember trolls are weak against fire? It pops up in all sorts of fantasy now.

>You will never have that experience again... with a troll.
>Make a new challenge with a new solution.

20 WIS answer

>Players are disposable.

Until if you have no players. And then your game is non-existent.

Since you obviously cannot recognize this basic fact, paying any further attention to your limp flailings would be a waste of my time and dignity.

>Now you're saying "the local elder" is in fact a Muslim?

So you have terrible reading comprehension and are unable to draw accurate solutions about a situation and the persons involved beyond what is spoon fed to you.

While your failing blog should have made it clear by now, I'd like to take this chance to recommend you finish your GED and avoid any field that requires critical thinking, reading skills, or social awareness.

>"I DIDN'T MAKE A MISTAKE IN MY POST THAT DIDN'T EXPLAIN WHAT I THOUGHT I DID, YOU JUST MISREAD IT BECAUSE YOU'RE SO STUPID!"

Alright, friend.

>Until you have no players

It is awful strange to assume that literally all players around me would be disruptive game-ruiners that I would need to remove, but I suppose it is a necessary assumption to make when you really, really want to villianize a random person on the internet. I mean, basic probability is working pretty firmly against you, here.

So yes, you need to be spoon fed in order to understand things.

This explains why you believe metagaming is not only acceptable, but also the GMs fault. Too bad really, but I guess something has ruined your ability to roleplay.

>being this much of a fag
How's it feel to never play with other people, OP?

Just stick to your vidya from now on, okay kid?

Are you okay, friend? Would you like to discuss why your post did not say what you think it did in more detail? I don't mind indulging you here.

>Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, when your character would know nothing of Islam.

See, because you failed to use any adjectives to describe the local elder beyond the "local" bit, this could be taken in a couple of ways, because of how English works.

>What you thought you said
"Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the Islamic local elder to help you, appealing to his sense of religious duty by quoting some relevant scripture or somesuch, when your character would know nothing of Islam."

>What you could've meant
"Or using your knowledge of Islam to convince the local elder to help you, explaining the danger of this violent and aggressive religion, pointing to the well-known concept of Jihad to pull a 'we must unite or perish divided' type angle"

The first would certainly imply you would need greater than cursory knowledge of Islam to compel his aid, because quoting relevant scripture would necessitate reading it. On the other hand, anyone who's suffered a sand nigger invasion is quite familiar with the concept of Jihad, and who's to say the character did not come from one of the many countries Islam has waged war on in the past?

You needn't be angry, friend, but in the future, try to speak more accurately, and get less angry when people are not able to understand what you are poorly trying to say.

...

So again, yes, you need to be spoon fed. Part of reading comprehension is being able to understand the implied information that is not explicitly stated.

If using your knowledge of Islam to influence the local elder helps to further the cause of your character it is safe and reasonable to assume the elder is a Muslim. Otherwise your knowledge of Islam wouldn't have been useful in persuading him.

But please continue to cherry pick and be as dense as lead.

>who's to say the character did not come from one of the many countries Islam has waged war on in the past?
The player does, on their character sheet, which you read before the game begins.

Stay in school kid, you'll graduate eventually.

>patreon
Take your tin cup somewhere else. And take your stupidity with you.

>If using your knowledge of Islam to influence the local elder helps to further the cause of your character it is safe and reasonable to assume the elder is a Muslim. Otherwise your knowledge of Islam wouldn't have been useful in persuading him.

No, it isn't, because it's just as possible that, in your one-sentence example, that Islam is a threatening foreign force that he ideally believes will be of no harm to his happy little village, and by evoking Jihad, you are illustrating to him that conversion or death means helping you is in his people's best interest.

I think you need a glass of water, friend. Or maybe you're just too blue pilled and cannot even conceive of a world where Islamist armies threaten the safety of simple people.

Which, honestly, is an unusual point that I did not think I would have to make, but you seem quite adamant that you implied he was Islamic merely by saying you used knowledge of Islam to influence him, when it's entirely possible he is not, and you are using basic knowledge to emphasize how it can be a threat to him.

So either you are simply very angry and embarrassed and sticking to your guns over this one for no reason other than bullheaded stubbornness, or literally *that* blue pilled.

Again. All of the items you have listed are things the player should have explicitly listed on their character's background.

A Cherokee slave in London would have no knowledge of Islam unless the character was provided the information. If the character is never provided that information but uses their personal knowledge of Islam to influence another person, that's metagaming.

If a crusader from london who's only knowledge of Islam is that it's heresy against Christ his player would not be able to use his personal knowledge of Islam to gain the favor/trust of the local elder. Who's a Muslim, since you need that spelled out for you and lack basic reasoning skills.

But please continue to cherry pick and be dense. I'm sure it makes you a wonderful person to play with.

>begging this hard for money
I'm going to look at you and say no. Now fuck off retard.

>Who's a Muslim, since you need that spelled out for you and lack basic reasoning skills.

Well, things do need to be said before they can be understood, that's true, friend. Saying what you're thinking does help in the communication process.

However, it's worth contemplating; assume the Cherokee slave says he was bought by a rich Muslim merchant who retired to London because he enjoyed the British isles more. As in, that minute, then and there, and then proceeded to say "And I use my knowledge of Islam to convince the Islamic local elder to help us." His owner has never come up beforehand, and you didn't even consider it a necessary detail on his character sheet, since you never thought it would come up.

Would you screech "YOU NEVER SAID THAT, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ISLAM, YOU CAN'T DO THAT" in that case?

>IP counter didn't change

No, seriously, why not just stop replying to the thread?

Virt, put your new trip back on or stop driving around to hotel WiFi hot apots.

It just so happens a room full of people sharing the same internal network want to remind you how much of a fag you are for begging for money through a stupid blog on Veeky Forums of all places, that's all.

>His owner has never come up beforehand, and you didn't even consider it a necessary detail on his character sheet, since you never thought it would come up.
I'd consider that a very big detail pal. And so should you if you're intelligent. That's the kind of material you build plot with.

If they never listed that their owner was a Muslim living in London but tried to use that to justify metagaming I'd call them out on their bullshit. Why? Because if you refuse to add details like that after I've asked you to, so I can build a decent story that engages all of my players, I'm going to add them. And you're going to be stuck with what I give you.

At this point you seem to be far to thick to actually converse with, so we'll be ending this waste of energy. Good night.

>Because if you refuse to add details like that after I've asked you to

Assume you didn't.

Because the thing here is, whatever you'd like to say, all of us people who actually *do* run games know that eventually, you're going to run into that scene where suddenly a detail that you didn't think would be important becomes important.

We can both argue over what we think is or isn't important in regards to a character's backstory, but that's immaterial. The point is, no character is going to be so fleshed out that you're going to know every last detail of his entire life. So when you run into a scenario where it's completely possible that an otherwise unrelated detail of his life has become relevant, and really it's just him using that as a justification to pull some levers in the gameworld, why is that bad? Why is that wrong?

Why is it wrong for the PCs to know the Troll is hurt by fire, user?

>btw ur 2 dumb 4 me bai lol

A classic.

Here's your (you) poorfag. You can go somewhere else now.

I still don't understand why you're still posting. You've been doing this since the thread's inception.

I mean, seriously, take a moment and cost-benefit this shit.

>Benefit:
>I get to vent some anger and frustration by spending my time in a thread I hate (?)
>I get some delicious (You)s

>Costs:
>The thread I hate hangs around longer, because even if I'm saging, someone will probably reply to me and not sage
>I spend a non-zero amount of time responding

Nobody can be *that* addicted to (You)s... can they?

...

see The entire lgs is mocking you right now. It's funny.

So does anyone with anything intelligent to say have something to add?

We're debating whether or not we should even bother help you understand what metagaming actually is, and why it's bad. But based on everything you've said thus far, you're a waste of time.

It's more amusing to watch you try and be an intellectual who thinks his opinions are worth shilling money for.

>I'm here to shitpost and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of gum!

I've honestly never seen someone try to play the "Y-yeah I'm totally browsing Veeky Forums with all my friends and we're all l-laughing at you, haha" angle though, so you've definitely managed to score a first there.

Just fuck already.

Does your lgs not have wifi?

We've got plenty of gum pal.

Do people not bring their phones and laptops to your club or game store?

>Even utilizing his phone to preempt calls of samefaggotry

I see I'm dealing with a professional shitposter here.

Let's go ahead and get back on track, though.

>We're debating whether or not we should even bother help you understand what metagaming actually is, and why it's bad.

Well, there's what metagaming actually *is* (remaining informed about the fact that you're a bunch of players sitting around a table playing what's essentially group pretend with rules, and using it to guide your decisions), and what mouthbreathers use it as (a bad-wrong-thing used when I don't think a player has "earned" information about the game world).

The former is clearly not bad, as it is a self-evident fact, and one that must be dealt with purely as a function of running the game.

The latter, I argue, is not bad, because as the OP's article points out, all you're doing now is making a new metagame to play. You're trying to "play dumb" until you "earn" your information that you already know. You're acting like you haven't played a hundred games with trolls that are vulnerable to fire before, so by golly, you're going to have that scene where you play like a total retard just so you can "earn it," making a begrudging show of it just so nobody gets their panties in a twist.

Which would you like to educate me on?

We're not going to get back on track for anything.

Go cry for money somewhere else pal. Veeky Forums is not the place for you.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming
>1d4chan.org/wiki/Metagame
>forumroleplay.com/roleplay-guides/bad-roleplay/metagaming/
>tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Metagame

Since you don't actually know the definition of metagaming, here's your homework.

Hopefully you'll also start to learn how to roleplay instead of being a man child.

>Since you don't actually know the definition of metagaming

What part in my post was incorrect?

read nigga. read the links, you'll learn something.

I will see a different definition, surely, but I will not see what precisely here is wrong. As the extremely intelligent multi-head-spaced individual that you are, I am sure you can guide me in the right direction through clear refutation of my definitions.

Also, this is a thinly veiled excuse to keep the thread you despise so much bumped.

Don't really mind it

>I refuse to read. Spoon feed me.
So like we thought, you are hopeless.