Messages and Metagaming

[Vellos]

En masse, yes, groups of them do things. But they never do it solo. And they never get arrested for it. And they never end up in your dungeons for it.

You've clearly never been attacked by ruffians while traveling unitless.

It doesn't take mobs: it takes a few highwaymen with daggers.

[Vellos]

You've clearly never been attacked by ruffians while traveling unitless.

It doesn't take mobs: it takes a few highwaymen with daggers.

I suppose I should clarify:

IMHO, it is metagaming to have your character act with certainty that a noble (a noble!) slunk around in the shadows with a dagger. Far more likely to be one of those darn adventurers.

Many, many, many assassinations happen without an obvious culprit: just because you've never seen a person other people thought was a commoner (my characters have often doubted the lineage of other "nobles") kill someone doesn't mean you would necessarily think it incredible.

[Anaris]

IMHO, it is metagaming to have your character act with certainty that a noble (a noble!) slunk around in the shadows with a dagger. Far more likely to be one of those darn adventurers.

This is absolutely wrong and wrongheaded. It is completely and totally appropriate for our characters to know what is actually possible in the game world.

I notice you tend to be very selective about the things you consider to be metagaming. I've never seen you advocate having our characters believe they can pass gold back and forth between each other in person, or believe that they could recruit more speedily if they went directly to the recruitment center in the region. Or that they might be able to pass entirely through a single region in under a day (assuming that the travel times into and out of the region are both less than 6 hours).

You only seem interested in encouraging people to disbelieve in the game-world restrictions when it comes to the possibilities of people getting away with doing nefarious deeds, even in cases where the facts of the matter are blatantly and unquestionably against them.

[Penchant]

I suppose I should clarify:

IMHO, it is metagaming to have your character act with certainty that a noble (a noble!) slunk around in the shadows with a dagger. Far more likely to be one of those darn adventurers.

Many, many, many assassinations happen without an obvious culprit: just because you've never seen a person other people thought was a commoner (my characters have often doubted the lineage of other "nobles") kill someone doesn't mean you would necessarily think it incredible.

So nobles are idiots who always get caught even after months and months of training but all adventurers are so skilled that they never, ever get caught attempting to assassinate a noble. We truly are fools while adventurers are the masterminds, so when in doubt, blame the adventurers. Yep, that is totally reasonable.

[Vita`]

The other aspect is that it takes a lot of training to successfully manage to infiltrate a noble camp full of guards, not even bringing up the success of stabbing target, which only a noble can afford. I wouldn't be opposed (though I doubt it'd happen) to give adventurers the ability to stab nobles. Of course, without infil skill, it'd be incredibly risky and more likely to get captured than someone who underwent much training. And, of course, you could be killed/wounded either in the process of getting captured by an overzealous unit or, failing that, executed by the judge as an example to all other uppity commoners.

[Penchant]

The other aspect is that it takes a lot of training to successfully manage to infiltrate a noble camp full of guards, not even bringing up the success of stabbing target, which only a noble can afford. I wouldn't be opposed (though I doubt it'd happen) to give adventurers the ability to stab nobles. Of course, without infil skill, it'd be incredibly risky and more likely to get captured than someone who underwent much training. And, of course, you could be killed/wounded either in the process of getting captured by an overzealous unit or, failing that, executed by the judge as an example to all other uppity commoners.

i could be wrong but I thought I heard somewhere there advy gained infil skill as an advy so if that is true it wouldn't be impossible for them, but I am pretty sure advys, even if freemen, don't need a ban to be executed.

[Vellos]

This is absolutely wrong and wrongheaded. It is completely and totally appropriate for our characters to know what is actually possible in the game world.

I notice you tend to be very selective about the things you consider to be metagaming. I've never seen you advocate having our characters believe they can pass gold back and forth between each other in person, or believe that they could recruit more speedily if they went directly to the recruitment center in the region. Or that they might be able to pass entirely through a single region in under a day (assuming that the travel times into and out of the region are both less than 6 hours).

You only seem interested in encouraging people to disbelieve in the game-world restrictions when it comes to the possibilities of people getting away with doing nefarious deeds, even in cases where the facts of the matter are blatantly and unquestionably against them.

I wouldn't be averse to people having characters who believe they can pass gold back and forth. I've frequently RP'd my characters paying gold for something when I didn't in fact do so.

It's not that I give special credence to nefarious deeds: it's that the point is usually only debated when it relates to nefarious deeds.

[Eirikr]

The other aspect is that it takes a lot of training to successfully manage to infiltrate a noble camp full of guards, not even bringing up the success of stabbing target, which only a noble can afford.

This is pretty much the exact argument I used when it came up for me.

[Perth]

You only seem interested in encouraging people to disbelieve in the game-world restrictions when it comes to the possibilities of people getting away with doing nefarious deeds, even in cases where the facts of the matter are blatantly and unquestionably against them.

That's probably because the nefarious deeds are meant to breed conflict IG and IG/IC conflict is all that keeps this game going. Whether you can actually pass gold to someone in person isn't really something to get rattle the swords over. The ambiguity of who actually stabbed King Kepler, on the other hand, is an excellent source of conflict and even more so if there is actually some ambiguity to it. As it is now, you ALWAYS know who it is who stabbed you or someone else. It zaps all of the fun, intrigue, and conflict out of the class.

[Indirik]

Well that's not true. If you're smart, and have a little bit of luck, they'll never even suspect it was you. Hell, I stabbed someone once and the guy who got blamed for it wasn't even in the region when it happened. I laughed all the way to the bank with the 1,000 gold bounty.

[Anaris]

That's probably because the nefarious deeds are meant to breed conflict IG and IG/IC conflict is all that keeps this game going. Whether you can actually pass gold to someone in person isn't really something to get rattle the swords over. The ambiguity of who actually stabbed King Kepler, on the other hand, is an excellent source of conflict and even more so if there is actually some ambiguity to it. As it is now, you ALWAYS know who it is who stabbed you or someone else. It zaps all of the fun, intrigue, and conflict out of the class.

That's not at all true. There can be plenty of ambiguity, if you don't try to treat an infiltrator like a ninja who's supposed to slip invisibly behind enemy lines and kill their leader, then slip invisibly back without a trace.

Furthermore, it's not like Vellos is even picking battles that make any sense. Frankly, when Galen auto da fe-ed Sigrún, it would have been hard for him to make more of a hash of it if he'd tried. The evil-overlord-ish message preceding the auto da fe, and the barrage of confused, contradictory attempts to disclaim responsibility afterwards, are so far from the kind of mastermind you're advocating for it's really not even amusing.

If, instead, you had built up to it with days of RP, establishing the peasantry of (IIRC) Razrpot as unruly, under the influence of a more radical school of your religion, and Galen as trying in vain to quiet them, that would have been one thing. I think it would still be borderline at best as far as the conflict between RP and game mechanics goes (after all, if you can claim that you performing an auto da fe is actually completely contrary to your character's intentions, why not claim that executing your character was also completely contrary to the Judge's intentions? She tried to have you released, but the guards all revolted against her and killed you to spite her!), but it would at least have been better than what happened.

So...yeah, if Vellos is trying to promote "good gameplay and RP," he's not picking examples to support that.

Seems to me he's just crying "metagaming" when it happens to suit his IC interests. Which is far worse metagaming than what any character believes.

[Vellos]

If, instead, you had built up to it with days of RP, establishing the peasantry of (IIRC) Razrpot as unruly, under the influence of a more radical school of your religion, and Galen as trying in vain to quiet them, that would have been one thing. I think it would still be borderline at best as far as the conflict between RP and game mechanics goes (after all, if you can claim that you performing an auto da fe is actually completely contrary to your character's intentions, why not claim that executing your character was also completely contrary to the Judge's intentions? She tried to have you released, but the guards all revolted against her and killed you to spite her!), but it would at least have been better than what happened.

I have no problem with your judge example.

I have no problem with some characters choosing to believe the judge is lying.

What I have a problem with is players acting with a level of certainty that makes no sense for a character to have.

[Anaris]

What I have a problem with is players acting with a level of certainty that makes no sense for a character to have.

It makes perfect sense.

Our characters live in a different world than we do. The rules of that world are not the same as the rules of this world. Suggesting that a peasant was the one who assassinated Duke Kepler is very much akin to suggesting that your cat was the one who typed up the terrible essay you turned in. Yes, technically it might not be physically impossible, but the idea just doesn't make sense based on everything you know about the world and how it works.

Even worse than "no one was identified, but he's the only one in the region" being metagaming is the suggestion that an infiltrator who was identified as he escaped from his attack might not be the one responsible. That's more like saying your cat designed and built a rocket and traveled to the moon and back.

Don't get me wrong, I love plausible deniability, and I want to add more of it to the game—like reinstating buying (foreign) regions, but doing so in such a way that it looks just like the region revolted and chose you as its new lord. I think that kind of stuff works really well.

What I think is preposterous and immensely aggravating is people who, like you, try to sow FUD purely in the name of sparking more conflict where it's not needed. From where I sit, that episode with Galen was the first wedge that started the division in Zonasa that led to half the realm hating the other half and wishing they were fighting on the side of the war that actively betrayed and attacked our realm.

[Vellos]

What I think is preposterous and immensely aggravating is people who, like you, try to sow FUD purely in the name of sparking more conflict where it's not needed. From where I sit, that episode with Galen was the first wedge that started the division in Zonasa that led to half the realm hating the other half and wishing they were fighting on the side of the war that actively betrayed and attacked our realm.

Erm, Galen and Onamont were the only ones speaking up for Galen... and neither one have been in PoZ for quite a while.

[Anaris]

Erm, Galen and Onamont were the only ones speaking up for Galen... and neither one have been in PoZ for quite a while.

Didn't say they were, but at least the impression I have is that that was the point where people started to turn against each other in PoZ, and it gradually degenerated from there.