Your DM asks you what your Will save is. You tell him...

I chuckle a bit and write back:
>Please don't let the others kill my character for no good reason.

>So you don't want to have fun?
Well obviously I'm not having fun!

Fun is subjective and you playing head games with the players may be fun for you, but is it possible that it's not fun for me? no, no, no, you go ahead and assume that your brand of fun is the universally accepted way to have fun and anyone who disagrees with you must either be insane or just too stupid to truly comprehend what fun is.

ya' schmuck

Technically speaking, messing with the perceptions of the players vs. those of the characters is metagaming, not roleplaying.

>anyone who disagrees with you must either be insane or just too stupid to truly comprehend what fun is.

Nah, just a killjoy.

In this kind of endeavour, the GM asks for a small sliver of your cooperation: 2 seconds. 2 small seconds. But you are too stupid, spoilsport, insane, or just plain edgy to help him.

You are effectively preventing the fun of all the group because you don't want to play. That is highly selfish - so selfish I can only think of terminal insecurities to explain why you would do that. Are your insecurities so entrenched you can't give two seconds of your life for the pleasure of all your group? Probably.

And then user was a zombie

Unless he does this often enough to prevent them from metagaming by making sure they never know if something has really happened to someone's character.

>Look at note
>Widen eyes
>Exhale through teeth
>Look thoughtful
>Scrawl a dickbutt on the paper
>Dont let anyone see what you wrote
>Pass it back
>Chew bottom lip worriedly
>Ask how [ability] works in regards to- wait never mind I'll ask later

That is NOT roleplaying. Nothing happened in-game whatsoever. Did their characters experience something? Did mine? Did any event transpire in-universe of which any of us are aware, whatsoever? If not, it's not roleplaying. It's distracting, metagame bullshit, and the GM is shit.

I immediately raise the objection "but you and I alreay know what's on it," out loud, in front of the other players, and then show it to all of them.

>Look at note
>"That's Bullshit!"
>Crumple up note and toss it behind GM screen
>Pretend to pout
>Dodge all questions from other players with "I guess you'll find out eventually"

Do you also reveal all secret cards in other systems? Count early to your belief, OOC actions DO influence IC actions no matter how hard you try.

>not immediately eating the note
This is why you guys can't find games.

>having autism on purpose

Assuming "Count early" is autocorrect for contrary, I know what you're saying, but I also don't like anything that increases the degree to which that is the case, unless we're playing either a comedy game or the most insanely narrative game ever (and I tend to prever more simulation-oriented, immersionist games).

I also don't care much for Fate points, inspiration, or other things which let players control things other than what their characters do.

This card doesn't say "your character really wants a cup of coffee" or "your character now has the shits." It says PURELY metagame shit, solely for purposes of manipulating the other players' out-of-character minds in a way that will invariably make it more difficult (rather than less, as should be the goal) to roleplay the characters accurately.
Basically see what I said above.

No, metagaming would be using OOC knowledge in the game when your character does not have that knowledge.

Like if players started acting differently because the GM passed someone a note. Any player who behaved differently IC because of what the GM did would be metagaming.

Found the autist :^)

Not that user. If they do metagame, you've broken immersion. If they don't, there would be no point to passing the note. Ultimately, encouraging metagaming is the point of the note. Which is why it sucks.

Maybe something is happening in game that should make the characters paranoid and this is a more effective way of getting them to roleplay that than passing them cards that say "your character feels paranoid."

Passing note that mean nothing discourages metagaming because if he does it regularly the players won't be able to tell if it means anything when he passes a note that actually has a point.

>You are effectively preventing the fun of all the group because you don't want to play.

Who says the group likes it? Who says it isn't your autistic ass that's being selfish because you want to feel superior with your head games? That ever enter your mind? Or were you too busy jacking off to your own euphoric intelligence.

Players should be thinking in-character as much as possible. Again, this will create dissonance. "I think Frank is up to something. Oh, but my character wouldn't know that. What would my character do? Uggh, he'd trust him, but I don't want to... but I have to."

You want game and metagame to line up as much as possible, unless you don't care about your players getting into the role of the characters.

>If they do metagame, you've broken immersion.
So they should throw a fit and call out the GM instead of playing along?

> If they don't, there would be no point to passing the note. Ultimately, encouraging metagaming is the point of the note.
How do you know what the point of the note is in this hypothetical situation? Maybe the player passed the will save and the GM wants the PCs to be uncertain about if the spell worked or not. Telling the player "you passed your will save" or "you are certain there are no traps" removes all doubt. How the PCs would know for certain that their friend wasn't charmed without checking? It sounds to me like the GM is trying to create tension.

1. Stop making straw mans
2. Maybe players have a non-autistic sense of humor (a.k.a. A normal person) "Heh, got me. I was totally convinced something happened".

So do it this way:

A few times a session, pass a note to each player. They can say nothing or they can say a lot. Maybe one says "nothing to report" but another says "ever since you first cut flesh with that sword you found on the berserk goblin, you've felt just the slightest bit irritable. It's getting worse."

That way, every single player could have one that says nothing, and nobody would know, and there isn't the OOC paranoia (which shouldn't exist IC and thus is a distraction) since the papers get passed to players all the time.

At the VERY least, let players know ahead of time that some notes will say nothing.

>So they should throw a fit and call out the GM instead of playing along?
When the GM is being a shit GM, yes. Headgames aren't just shit GMing, they're being a dick.

>How do you know what the point of the note is in this hypothetical situation? Maybe the player passed the will save and the GM wants the PCs to be uncertain about if the spell worked or not. Telling the player "you passed your will save" or "you are certain there are no traps" removes all doubt. How the PCs would know for certain that their friend wasn't charmed without checking? It sounds to me like the GM is trying to create tension.
You're making up specific hypotheticals that weren't raised in the OP. Are you saying the GM passes notes to the players every single time they look for traps? If so, then it's routine and should probably say "you haven't found any traps" or "there seems to be a trap under the throw rug." That way the PC can tell the other PCs whether or not he saw one in-character. But there is no in-character information here. Just pure headgames, meant to make the PLAYERS (not the characters, the players) paranoid, in the absence of an in-character reason to feel that way.

Not that user, but

>I was totally convinced something happened.
So? The character wasn't. The player should be led to believe (to the greatest extent possible) what his or her character believes, about the in-game universe.

itt: metagaming is okay when the GM wants you to do it, but badevilwrong when the GM doesn't want you to do it

Pretty much.

I think you mean "itt: metagaming is okay when the GM tricks you into it in a sad bid to feel superior"

If you and the rest of the group trust someone to run a game for you, you should probably trust that he will attempt to create an enjoyable experience for you guys.

If something he does falls flat, let him know (politely), so that he can either try it a different way or just stop doing it (whichever he feels is most conducive to group fun).

You don't even know you won't like it (since you're trying to avoid it happening in the first place), but you assume you won't and you assume the rest of the group won't, so you're actively trying to undermine the efforts of the person assigned to try to make sure everyone has a good time.

tl;dr stop being a spoiled child and eat what your parents are giving you. You might find you like it.

Jesus Christ, the autism.

>paranoia is evil and will ruin a game
>having a tantrum at the table is acceptable behavior
>the GM's job is to remove all doubt from the players
>fun times at the table ruin my immersion

I bet you get kicked out of games a lot, I bet you think that most people are obnoxious as a result. I'll let you in on a secret though [spoilers] you are the obnoxious one, and they hate you [/spoilers]

Used to pass notes that would say "laugh" or "roll some dice and look worried". Always good.
Especially in paranoia games!

>>paranoia is evil and will ruin a game
Out of character paranoia that doesn't correspond to in-character paranoia is a waste of time.
>>having a tantrum at the table is acceptable behavior
>GMs are beyond reproach and criticism
>>the GM's job is to remove all doubt from the players
Part of the GM's job is to aid the players in feeling like part of a fictional world. Part of what that entails is not throwing unnecessary distractions in the way.
>>fun times at the table ruin my immersion
Having to make my character do things that I actively know are things I do not want them to do ruins my immersion.

>I bet you get kicked out of games a lot, I bet you think that most people are obnoxious as a result. I'll let you in on a secret though [spoilers] you are the obnoxious one, and they hate you [/spoilers]
I've never been kicked out of a game. I'm in two right now, and they're going well. I try not to participate in shit games, though. But I guess that's good news for you since there's more room for you and you seem to like them.

I'm not sure what the real difference is between the first half of your post and what you're complaining about in the second half.

In both cases you pass out various notes at various times, with some of them having actual information on them and some of them being decoys. I don't see what the difference is between "every now and then hand someone a note" and "every now and then hand everyone a note" aside from that multiplying the number of notes handed out by the number of players in the group.

There WILL be OOC paranoia with your suggestion, since people won't know whether or not anyone else got a note with actual information on it, it'll just be slightly easier to forget about that possibility.

If you hand out enough notes that they get used to you doing it, that will reduce the OOC paranoia, but the entire point of giving information to some player(s) but not all is to create OOC paranoia. You could simply announce to one player "You have been mind controlled by someone the party hasn't seen yet, and you have the uncontrollable desire to head [direction]" but that messes with the atmosphere of the game pretty significantly.

OP's example is small time. I take it a step further. I actively try to convince players that other players don't like them and/or are doing things that would hurt them. Like maybe one player has been flirting with another player's girlfriend.

I find that this entirely out-of-character paranoia and antipathy adds a lot of intensity.

So far, I haven't been caught, which means I'm better than my players.

>You want game and metagame to line up as much as possible
And passing notes, some of which are dummies, is a way of helping that along in some situations.

Players aren't going to be 100% competent at thinking in-character, so sometimes an OOC nudge like this can help them out in that area. The trick is in using it only the right amount for the situation and for the reaction you want.

I like how many of you are outright making up context about the GM handing out real and dummy notes all the time, to make what OP is saying reasonable, instead of taking it as presented, with no other notes for context.

Putting it out there; me and my group love notes, use them all the time.

Useful for shit like char a spots some loot every one else missed it what's he going to do? Share try to get it for himself?

Or the Dm will have prepared knowledge answers, he passes the answer over then let's the player explain it as they want ICC

Sometimes shit happens like silent spells and a character will notice something but be unable to just yell out to inform the rest of the party so has to come up with a way to share the weakness.

If you hate notes your retarded. They are awesome. And yes occasionally the notes have stuff like what's in OP as no one gets paranoid as they aren't retarded manchildren. Everyone accepts it has to be done otherwise they know it would turn into look John got a note follow that sneaky rogue.

I won a campaign once by eliminating all other players OOC using these techniques.

Honestly, the best part of this thread is that I 100% guarantee these very same people who defend OP handing out stupid notes that have nothing to do with what's going on in the game-world, but act as pure and simple meta-fiddling to try to fuck with the players by taking advantage of their assumptions regarding the game they're playing, would almost undoubtedly say that players should have to pass some stupid Knowledge roll if they wanted to use fire or acid against a Troll.

It's absolutely fine for the GM to go full metagame on everyone with no ingame situation backing it up, but my god, the world will come crashing down if we don't play out that stupid "my god, it's weak to being set on fire!" scene for the 528th time.

Not that user, but
>Out of character paranoia that doesn't correspond to in-character paranoia is a waste of time.
Obviously, that's why you only do this at times that call for in-character paranoia.

>GMs are beyond reproach and criticism
Whether or not they are, throwing a tantrum (I would include angrily revealing the contents of a note to players it wasn't intended for to be "throwing a tantrum") is not an appropriate response. If you feel the overwhelming urge to do that, just leave the game instead.

>Part of the GM's job is to aid the players in feeling like part of a fictional world. Part of what that entails is not throwing unnecessary distractions in the way.
But some distractions, done properly, can help them get (and stay) in character.

>Having to make my character do things that I actively know are things I do not want them to do ruins my immersion.
What? Does your character getting mind controlled ruin your immersion? How to functionally-blank notes interact with this?

>I've never been kicked out of a game.
Different games are for different people. It's good that you've found some you like and can get along with, but don't assume that/those style(s) of game are the only good options for anyone.

I don't hate notes. What I hate is the idea of ONE note being used one time, with no context of other notes, to deliver a message that has no in-game content, solely for the purpose of making other players paranoid when their characters have no reason to be.

>would turn into look John got a note follow that sneaky rogue
Which is exactly what you'll get if the GM passes one player one note one time.

>Obviously, that's why you only do this at times that call for in-character paranoia.
If you don't provide in-character reasons to be paranoid, then the note is pure metagame. I do think if you pass notes a lot for all kinds of reasons, then it's a different situation, but this isn't what OP presented. If I were five sessions into a campaign and suddenly the GM did this just to fuck with the other players, I think I'd be right to be pissed.
>Whether or not they are, throwing a tantrum (I would include angrily revealing the contents of a note to players it wasn't intended for to be "throwing a tantrum") is not an appropriate response. If you feel the overwhelming urge to do that, just leave the game instead.
I would probably actually pass a note back to the GM that says "this is stupid," and bring it up at the next break. I exaggerated my reaction to show the revulsion I feel at the idea of such meta dickery.

>But some distractions, done properly, can help them get (and stay) in character.
I would say if it helps them get/stay in character, it isn't a distraction. I just like meta knowledge to match up to character knowledge as much as possible. If Jack is sneaking out to talk to people and I catch him, then I feel paranoid. If Jack's player is receiving notes from the GM at an unrelated time, I'm trying to ignore that paranoia in order to discern how paranoid my character should actually be.

>What? Does your character getting mind controlled ruin your immersion? How to functionally-blank notes interact with this?
I'm not a big fan of mind control, but that's not directly relevant. What I mean is, having information that makes it harder to make the IC right decision sucks. Imagine how much less fun it would be to play a mystery game if you know who did it but have to run through the motions of not knowing.

(part 1/2)

As people have said multiple times, you don't just pass one dud note one time. You make a habit of passing notes, and a decent portion of them (I'd say at least half, but that's my personal preference) say nothing or just discuss mundane shit like "your foot itches."

One dud note being used one time is going to make people assume that character has been mind controlled or some shit. A GM with a habit of passing dud notes passing someone a note might mean their character was mind controlled, or something else, or it might just be him passing dud notes again.

In my experience, the first scenario creates paranoia and encourages metagaming because it's obviously important. The second scenario creates mild unease every time a note is passed, but it might mean nothing so you get a little more careful. Done right, the second scenario can really help roleplaying, but (like everything) done wrong can really hurt roleplaying and/or other aspects of the game.

>Different games are for different people. It's good that you've found some you like and can get along with, but don't assume that/those style(s) of game are the only good options for anyone.
OP said "Your DM," not "some random DM somewhere." So I'm saying how I feel about it.

(2/2)

>As people have said multiple times, you don't just pass one dud note one time. You make a habit of passing notes, and a decent portion of them (I'd say at least half, but that's my personal preference) say nothing or just discuss mundane shit like "your foot itches."
In that case, I think it's fine. But it's not what OP said, so people are making up context to justify OP's hypothetical DM, for whom we have no indication of any prior notes.

>If you don't provide in-character reasons to be paranoid, then the note is pure metagame.
Well yes, but why do you assume this GM is doing this at a time when there isn't any in-character reason to feel paranoid? That said, I'm of the opinion that "walking through the creepy old castle" is an in character reason to potentially feel paranoid, especially if there's a Wizard or Vampire or something rumored to be in the area.

>but this isn't what OP presented
All we know is that the OP talked about one note being passed one time. We don't know if his GM made a habit of it. If he's doing it this time I'm assuming he either made a habit of it or is starting to make a habit of it, and both of those are fine with me.

>If I were five sessions into a campaign and suddenly the GM did this just to fuck with the other players, I think I'd be right to be pissed.
>I would probably actually pass a note back to the GM that says "this is stupid," and bring it up at the next break
This is the appropriate response

>I would say if it helps them get/stay in character...
>What I mean is, having information that makes it harder to make the IC right decision sucks
These really come down to how well it's done, which we don't know in this situation. I tend to give GMs the benefit of the doubt unless whoever is telling the story says something about them not having played in one of this GM's games before or something like that, under the assumption that most GMs will suck across the board or be pretty good across the board.

>OP said "Your DM," not "some random DM somewhere." So I'm saying how I feel about it.
What? If anything, you should trust the GM you already know more than "some random DM somewhere" and give him more of the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not going to respond to the first part of your response, because I think we're getting down to you liking something I don't like, OP being vague, and things of that nature.

As far as this:
>What? If anything, you should trust the GM you already know more than "some random DM somewhere" and give him more of the benefit of the doubt.
You're right, and I do. What I meant was that, if my GM did it, I'd be pissed, and if someone else's GM did it, I would just say, "Oh, well, if those players don't mind, that's their business."

So I took "Your DM" to mean "how do you feel about this happening to you," not "do you think this is objectively good or bad?" I just had a strong reaction because it's something I really wouldn't like (without the context of other notes, I suppose).

Fair enough a single note with no other purpose is stupid. I agree with you on that.

We also don't have any indication of a LACK of prior notes.

From the specific text in the OP, I'd say he's asking about passing dud notes in general, not about some specific occasion his GM passed him a dud note.

Fair enough, I just got the impression from your posts that you considered it to be objectively bad and not merely something you personally disliked.

>We also don't have any indication of a LACK of prior notes.

Well you didn't say you DON'T rape children, so shut the fuck up you retarded pedophile.

>you are probably below average in intellect

You assumed this was the first time, and I simply pointed out that we can't assume that since the OP didn't say anything about that.

That has nothing to do with anything in character. It's a form of metagame.

>You
I'm the person you were talking to before and I'm not , who jumped in.

And I'm saying we can't simply assume you don't rape children, because otherwise you would've said you don't rape children. Because obviously, that is how human communication works; we specify everything that we AREN'T doing, otherwise we obviously ARE doing them.

Now go away, kiddy diddler.

Ahh, gotcha.

Technically you haven't said that either.

Also, I'm not going to bother responding to you any further.

>Also, I'm not going to bother responding to you any further.

That's because you're a moron who has zero counterarguments to the point I am making.

Yeah, OP didn't say there were no notes made as prior context. But assuming he did and just didn't say so is retarded. Almost as retarded as assuming you're raping kids just because you didn't say you weren't, you filthy child porker you.

I agree with this guy. The other two user's hounding him sounds salty because they probably do the same stupid out of character mind games bullshit to trying and compensate for their own out of character stupidity.

everybody's laughing at you bud

I feel like passing notes is fine depending upon the game. I have run paranoia games where I pass notes to people all the time sometimes I pass a note to a person have them pass it back to me pretend to erase part of it or add a few line of nonsense to the message and then pass it to another player. But while running games such as D&D or pathfinder I rarely pass notes and if I want to send a subtle message to someone I will typically just private message them via an IM so it's not as conspicuous.

I passed my DM a note once that said "I don't have anything to say, I just wanted to be included in the note passing"

Go along with it, if it makes sense in context. If we're dealing with anything like shapeshifters, illusionists, mind control, a PC's backstory, or even well-hidden treasures, I'll just nod and pocket the note.

>It's called good gming, and actually fun when implemented correctly.

It's meta bullshit, that's what it is.

>b-b-b-b-b-but it spooks muh players!!! xD

If you can't set up an atmosphere without resorting to meta tricks then you're a bad GM.

If you are forcing an atmosphere rather than allowing your players to react to it naturally, you're a bad GM.

>b-b-b-b-b-but muh fun!!! xD

'Fun' isn't a trump card. There are loads of stupid shit I could do in any game or sport that might be fun, but also inappropriate.

Also by playing the no-fun-allowed card, you are effectively stating that shit like this is the only way to have fun in a pnp. You didn't say that exactly, but that's the only way your argument can make sense - or at least it would if it wasn't nonsense to begin with.

>ITT: one butthurt autist samefags a guy who left the thread hours ago

Until you posted, everyone had left the thread hours ago.

>last post before you, 2 hours ago

I immediately put on my best "Oh shit" face and then suddenly look over to one of the other players shiftily.

You so smart.
Wish I was as smart as you.

What if they encountered a spell that causes paranoia in the party members, and the one who got the note was the only one who succeeded? That's a pretty great way of making the players feel exactly how their characters are supposed to feel.