Metagaming

There was an incident involving metagaming at my Sunday night game, and I thought I'd get opinions from folks on the issue.

First, let's be up front to establish that metagaming happens. We all know it, and we've probably all profited from it at one point or another.

Now, the situation in the game is as follows. We're playing Pathfinder. The relevant characters are, on the side of the heroes, an alchemist with the stink bomb discovery and a ranged specialist ranger. The GM had us against a number of foes, the relevant ones being an enlarged lizardfolk barbarian and a lizardfolk scout (adapted from the 3.5 version of the class, so it can do extra damage if it moves and shoots). Earlier in the fight, a stink bomb caused the barbarian in question to become nauseated, which lasted for 1d4+1 (in this case, I rolled a 3) rounds after the smoke cleared. The alchemist was subsequently knocked unconscious by a different enemy, so he can't communicate anything to the rest of the party.

The ranger and the scout basically have a running archery contest with each other. Then, two clicks in the initiative order before the barbarian can act again, the ranger suddenly declares a full attack on it. The guy playing the ranger flat-out says "Since the nausea effect is about to end, I'm attacking the barbarian."

It's a good thing that the session was online, because the GM sounded like he was about to do a table flip - the ranger had no way of knowing just how long the effect would last (he tried to argue that he had seen it before, but this was only the second time the alchemist used the ability, and the first time rolled a longer nausea period). And as the alchemist was knocked unconscious (but healed to prevent bleeding out), he wasn't able to tell anyone just how long it might have lasted. The ranger's player was even offered a chance to make a Heal check to see if he could figure out that the barbarian was recovering from his nausea, but the player refused, saying that he should just naturally know.

The actual argument took 20 minutes, but it was mostly circular; the major points were nailed above. In the end, the ranger's player pulled a martyr act and just had his character take a full move backwards (which turned out to save his life from a spell that was about to go off in his face that none of us knew about), complete with bitching about how the GM wouldn't allow him to take a reasonable action (shooting a barbarian before it became a threat rather than the scout that was actively a threat). The GM shot back venomous comments about how characters in the world can't see the dice and how he'd handle duration rolls himself privately from now on (the alchemist rolled prior).

So, a few questions.

1. Was the player legit in trying to switch targets, or was he basically trying to treat Pathfinder like a video game?
2. Does the GM have the right to completely overrule an action based on what he think the character should do?
3. Should the GM have offered more rolls to give the ranger a chance to recognize the effect (either Craft (Alchemy), Knowledge (Arcana), or Spellcraft)?
4. Is this a blip, or is the fact that it was a 20-minute argument a sign that the session is about to go downhill?

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

• 1. Oh, he was definitely metagaming there, and a lot more blatantly than is generally accepted at a casual gaming table. No excuse to be made.
• 2. The GM is always right, and good ones know to use this power responsibly. If he let this slide, he'd open the floodgates for even more OOC madness, so I say he made the right call.
• 3. As far as my knowledge of Pathfinder goes (which is mostly based on dated knowledge of D&D), rangers generally have a decent heal skill, while all the other suggested skills probably wouldn't have been as good. As such, the ranger had already been made the best possible offer, yet he still refused.
• 4. Depends, though this does seem the sort of thing that could make participants more than a little bitter. If the next session brings up another problem between the same people, I suggest giving them a stern talking-to.

1: While switching targets with the Barbarian I wouldn't say outright was a metagame decision, the way he announced it certainly was. Phrasing it differently, at least from what you've laid out, could have solved a lot of problems.

Since it's a random effect, his character would have no way of knowing how long it would last for. At best, if he's seen the effect, he can make an estimate on how long it'll last for. That would have been acceptable. "Last time I saw this effect, it only lasted a short while, so I better take advantage of it." But he has no way of determining how long, exactly, it will last for.

2: This question is a bit tricky. There are multiple things a GM can do, and all of them are likely to piss off characters in one way or another. The first is, as you have here, overruling an action since it's based on information a character doesn't have. The other I can recall is docking experience points. I'm sure there's a few other things. And, like I said, none of them will go over well. Honestly, overruling an action is probably the least intrusive (Aside from ignoring, of course.), and yet there will be some players that take any GM control of their character as a personal offence.

3: While other rolls offered aren't a bad idea (I think Spellcraft fits well, since it covers immediate spell effects, and an Alchemist's effects are closely related to spells), it sounds like being offered them wouldn't have helped, as problem player here probably wouldn't have taken it.

4: Always take such things in aggregate. Once doesn't indicate the group's falling apart, though it may indicate one player is on the way out.

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.

1. The way they did it according to your post? No, that wasn't legit. It's an easy thing to argue for though, it just seems like in this situation the player decided to not bother.

2. Well, Rule Zero is a thing. Actually, instead of just ignoring the attack outright the GM could've just rolled the Heal check for the character anyway. GM intervenes in the character's actions, but roleplay is preserved and the dice get to decide whether the attack comes or not, which is usually seen as more fair than the GM just saying "No you can't do that."

3. If the player isn't taking the Heal check I don't think offering more options would help.

4. Depends on the group. Some people can argue for hours over vehicle combat rules and still play together, and some flip their shit if the dice ever dare to roll a 1.

But that's a story for another time.

Both, I'd say - switching targets is a legit move, though saying "I'm doing it before the effect wears off" was metagaming. Had he done it the round before, the GM would have said nothing, I bet. To an ... extremely limited degree, IMO. The GM is better off applying penalties in-game for actions that don't make sense. As a GM, I would have offered a "your choice of skills x,y,z" and let the player pick; if it then failed, it failed. Depends on the group. One group I played Aberrant with could easily derail into hour-long rules discussions, which was grand fun for the GM and about a third of the players (sometimes including me).

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I got a bit more information as to background.

For the question about checks, the ranger in question is built off running wild with Kirin Path, so the character doesn't have ranks in Heal (in fact, the only character that does is the alchemist who was unconscious) but does have ranks in multiple Knowledge skills. I think some ranks of Spellcraft were there as well, though I don't know if Craft (Alchemy) was an option. Both Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Local) (since they were lizardmen and thus covered under humanoids) were potentially available rolls.

For the "falling apart" question... I do take comfort in the responses, but it worries me that the GM confided in me that multiple people have complained about the ranger's player's antics.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

Any GM who completely overrides the player's control of their character has forgotten what everyone is at the table for. You have a lot of options as a GM. Seizing control of a character from the player directly, no matter how briefly or how justified, should never be one of them. People come to play their characters, however badly they may actually do so.

edited 27th Jun '14 2:27:49 PM by Night

Nous restons ici.

I wouldn't call forbidding an action taking control of a character. And nor do feel briefly taking control is as cardinal a sin as you're painting it as.

Interesting. When I was playing in group situations, we always assumed that our characters knew everything that players rolled in combat.

The more RP-focused players would then take suboptimal actions based on what their characters should know (or rather, optimal based on what their characters should know, but suboptimal in the meta sense).

Might have something to do with the DM also being upfront about stuff that affected players.

I'd consider it a very mild form of metagaming. Both Pathfinder and D&D sort of run on the assumption that the players know long effects last, even if its random - so that players can plan their actions accordingly. (Or rather, they leave the specifics up to the gaming group). The way he phrased it was meh, but honestly, it's not something worth vetoing a player about.

It's honestly something the DM should have discussed ahead of time, rather than flip out about.

edited 30th Jun '14 8:23:56 AM by CobraPrime