Awhile back, when I said I left the Moathouse prior to the fight with Lareth, so as to rest in the Welcome Wench Inn, someone said that I was metagaming. So I looked it up in Wikipedia and got this: "In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon." So it sounds to me like even reloading after being killed is metagaming. Is that so? I'm interested in a discussion on this. What is metagaming and what isn't? What is considered inside the "rules" and what is outside the "rules?" I do understand that one has the license to determine his/her own rules, but it sounds to me like there are some unstated but generally understood "rules" in role-playing. So what are they? (BTW, just FYI, I no longer head to the Inn or my Nulb house after every fight. I have been resting inside the Temple instead. I am still leaving the Temple when I clear out the floor, however.)
Bah, everything you know about the game may be called metagaming. And personally, I think it's inevitable not to "metagame" (can you use it as a verb?), because you will always know something that your character doesn't know...
This is especially true for those of us who started out with PnP RPG games. After reading so many manuals, modules, etc. your bound to have a ton of game info that could be considered "metagaming" if used.
IMO leaving a known dangerous place to rest in a known safe place wouldn't be metagaming. You start the game in Hommlet, so you know it's safe. So you leaving the Moathouse to rest sounds fine to me. If you left specifically to heal up before encountering Lareth, because you knew he'd be there from previous playthroughs, then that would be metagaming, technically. More important though is playing the game the way you want to. You're not playing to satisfy anyone but yourself, so do what works for you. That's one of the nice things about ToEE - it's so flexible that it works for people who want to play it straight, uber-gamers who want everything and everyone maxed out, and everything in between. As for definitions, I'd say the wiki quote is accurate. Any information that your character(s) shouldn't know but that you as the player act on anyway would qualify.
Out of curiosity, in the PnP games, what options are there for a character who dies? You can't reload...or is there the equivalent of reloading?
That usually depends on the DM (person running the game). In a party, you may have cleric or druid who could raise dead or the like. Otherwise, the party would have to lug their deceased friend's corpse back to a town in hopes that the local cleric could raise them. In my past experiences, my DM was allowed (on very rare occasions) to avoid the death by replaying the scenario. Sort of like a reload. He mostly punished players for stupidity, like failing to check for traps, etc. He wasn't cruel or mean, but he kept us on our toes.
You take a new sheet and make a new charcter, most of the time. A high level party could have resurrecting chances (money to pay a cleric, or a cleric able to raise the dead, magical items, clones, etc). Personally i give my player charcters an "extra life". Their god summons them, analizes the situation, and gives them a second chance, and depending their deeds, they can be compromised or in debt. There may be other extra lives, but i didn't have to get to that point.
The correct spelling, "analyzing", isn't much better. I think this has been over-analised. Heheh, I said "analised".
I have to agree (with what I copied above and even with what I didn't). I've played the game so many times I know whats ahead, but even so I send my thief ahead to scout things out. I take care of what I can safely take care of, load up with what I can without being encumbered and trek back to a safe place to rest. Even then, I have to be prepared for the unexpected random encounter. Granted, when I first read about the Moathouse respawn, I had thought it different than what it is. Permanently clearing the Moathouse, the Deklo Grove, Hickory Branch, et. al. should be a lot more difficult than it is, but I foresee that taking place in the not too distant future. In fact, the longer one takes to arrive at any given location the more dangerous it should become. If not more monsters in any given area, then somewhat tougher monsters (due to their gaining experience). Let's face it, the bug bears and gnolls aren't just there so we can hack and slash them to pieces. Also, as I recall (metaknowledgable as I am when it come to this particular module; being as it was always my favorite) the gnolls and bugbears don't get along. So, some of each would be tougher and some of each would be brand new (recruited from Hickory Branch and such) due to infighting between them. I could go on and on, but my brain never stops and I'd be sitting here all night. The thing that really excites me though is that I now know that all of the above is doable and in time I'll be able to do it myself if need be. However, I got way off topic, except my point is that in due time metagaming in ToEE will become tougher and tougher; as it is gradually taking on a life of it's own. Stohrm PS. Perhaps we need to make better use of rumors in the game, so that our metaknowledge has a better chance of being player knowledge.
Hi Very interesting discussion. One of the things I have done, to make the game more interesting is to flip a coin to determine which route my party takes while exploring the moathouse and the temple. There are some "precautions" that sound like "Metagaming" but are simply logical, practical playing, such as sending a rogue forward to scout out new areas, and casting general protection and Buff spells (Barkskin, Stoneskin, Bullstrength, etc... ) on members of the party as needed. I will confess that I used to Metagame certain areas (the Fire Temple, Prince Thrommel's Rescue) but decided to run them "Non-meta" just for fun. I actually had a lot of fun in the Fire Temple and still cleaned it out without losing anybody. The deciding spell was the Wizards Lesser Globe of Invulnerabilty (It's logical to assume that a Wizard going into an Evil Temple that may or may not house Evil Clerics would have such a spell handy, Just in case.....). The Rogue went forward, found the Salamanders, played 13F and called in the Artillery (The Wizard and Melany casting multiple Ice Storms). Everyone except the Rogue huddled around the Wizard (to stay within the GOI) and everyone came through just fine. Another thing I did, was to "assume" that in every combat, a character would start fighting with their "preferred" weapon (Elmo and his Ax for example) until they "realized" that their weapon "didn't work" (this led too 2 Ochre Jellies getting split into 4 in one fight before the fighter types "realized" they needed to switch weapons). I should point out that I think the way Icewind Dale II handles a Rogues ability to hide/ move silently is more "realistic". There is no way that you are going to sneak a Rogue within 5 feet of any halfway intelligent creature in IW II unless that Rogue is Invisible or is approaching said creature in dark shadows from behind. TRC
If I told you, I would have to call a fire mission on you. :flamed: If I remember right, 13 is the Artillery Branch and 13f is Forward Observer. He's up front with the grunts calling in artillery fire. The artillery is way behind the lines, and fires on the coordinates he tells them. Thieves are great for this in most D&D games, as they often can completely evade damage, from , say, a fireball from far away.
