Let's talk Meta-Gaming

So, how many people have told you that they don't like "meta-gaming" either, but meta-game anyway? For me, almost everyone I've ever sat across the table from and almost everyone whose joined my RPoL game.

In my current game, the players – all 2^nd level – have come across the image of a Beholder. Some of them "think" it's a Beholder and some of them "think" this eye can do that, while this other eye does this, etc.

None of my players have given a character background that includes formal training; in other words, none of them have graduated from a "University" or an "Academy" of this, that or the other thing.

One player is certain that he would know what it is because he's a dwarf; actually, a dwarven barbarian raised by a clan of human barbarians after he had been orphaned. So, given that he would only have been taken in by this human tribe if he had been very young – since humans regard 30 year olds as adults, regardless of what dwarves think – upon what is he relying? Perhaps some racial memory? Not in my game.

Next thing I know he'll be an "expert" on mining, or engineering . . . because he's a "dwarf." Sorry, being a dwarf is – in his case – nothing more than an "accident of birth." He was raised by human barbarians who are – according to the Rules you all like so much – illiterate. Yep, people who can't even read or write taught him all about mining and engineering. Oh, wait a minute, I'm forgetting the "racial memory" thing.

More to the point, I don't hold with the assumption that dwarves automatically know anything about aberrations. Beholders may be found in the occasional dungeon, but it doesn't mean that they live there, or are a part of the everyday world.

Another character is an Elf Archivist – Heroes of Horror, chapter 5 – except that he wields arcane magic rather than divine. He was trained by a mentor, rather than at a magical school. He knows what Beholders are because his mentor taught him everything and his mentor knew everything. Obviously his mentor is far greater than Mordenkanien or Rary.

Incidentally, all of this knowledge flowing from my players comes without any Knowledge check rolls. Nope, no succeeding or failing rolls, they just know these things. Apparently Skill Points are absolutely unnecessary for RPoL games, even if you do need these "things" in an actual table top game.

I have come to the realization that having experienced Gamers play "new" characters is a complete and utter waste of time. They just can't do it. They simply cannot leave their "real world" knowledge of the game out of their game play. I shudder to think what kind of game I would have if I were using a module that they had already played before. As it is, a couple of them have confessed to me that they took the time to go over the module in order to "prepare" themselves for it.

No, playing in a game without meta-gaming is completely beyond their abilities. They just can't do it. It's causing me to rapidly lose interest in my own game. Like many, they pay "lip service" to the "rule" that its' the DM's game, but that's it, just lip service. They will debate every point.

I had advertised the game stating: "No meta-gamers need apply." I even explained what meta-gaming is. Yet, here they are. I said: "The DM is always right." Yet, here we are. Perhaps I should have written all of that in . . . Arabic?

It would be nice to find a group – somewhere – that could separate themselves from their real world knowledge of the game and begin fresh. But, I suppose that's just a dream. The thing that really gets me is that the guys and gals in Hollywood do it all the time, in every movie they make. This gets me because I've met a great many Gamers that say they could be actors, if given the chance.

No they can't. They can't even "act" in a table top game, why are they so foolish as to think they can do it in Hollywood? Do they really think they're going to be able to argue any point with the Hollywood DM, err, I mean the Director? Oh, wait a minute, a Hollywood Director and a DM are one and the same things, aren't they? Yes . . . they are.

No dear Gamers, I am afraid that you are delusional . . . you could never be a Hollywood actor or actress. You can't even do it at the Gaming Table, even if that "table" is on RPoL.

Let's Talk Clerics

They are all "lawful." They are lawful in that they are obedient to the decrees of their God. This morning, their commands that all his/her Clerics, everywhere, do twenty pushups, no Cleric of said God decides, 'Naw, I'm not going to do those pushups.' They do the pushups; they are loyal to their God.

They are "lawful." The decrees and laws of men do not enter that equation. Whether the God is Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic simply refers to the God's attitude towards the "world of men." Is the God helpful to the world of men, harmful, or just doesn't care?

Clerics are not obligated to obey the laws and decrees of the King, Duke, Count or Baron, just as the Paladin isn't.

But, what I really want to talk about is: Spells. The spells of Clerics have no "level," not really. No Cleric can "heal" a person of his/her own volition. This is confirmed by the fact that Magicians can't heal people. When Clerics cast their spells, they are, in truth, asking their God for a favor. The nature of the spell determines just how big a "favor" the Cleric is asking for.

I use the spell levels, of course, it simplifies matters . . . but there are exceptions: three of them. Raise Dead (5^th), Resurrection (7^th) and True Resurrection (9^th). These are "big favors" and there is nothing you can do to earn such a favor. Will your God bring this person back for you, or won't he/she? That's what my percentile dice determines. Your character's "level" plays no part whatsoever.

Neither does the dead person's religion. In the computer game Temple of Elemental Evil, your group fights Iuz. Some of you will die. St Cuthbert will appear and will cast True Resurrection upon anyone who's died. 

Wait a minute! What if We Jas doesn't want her follower Resurrected?

Too bad, because Cuthbert raises everybody. The Gods make their own "deals." Your God can and will Resurrect anyone he/she wants to, period. But, will your God do it for you.

In other words, if a 2^nd level character in my game wishes to attempt Raise Dead, they are welcome to try. There's no such thing as "it's a 5^th level spell!" Not in my game. Any Cleric can ask his/her God for this favor at any level they wish to, the percentile die will determine whether or not it works.

Does the percentage increase for higher level Clerics? Sometimes, it depends. On what? Well, it's not going to work "better" just because you're a "higher" level character. As a higher level character, it is presumed that you have done "more" for your God's worship, though that is not necessarily true.

It is assumed – and in my game I'll know – that you donated more money than a lower level character, you've converted more people to your God's worship, you've erected more temples in his/her name. All because you have – presumably – been doing it longer than a lower level Cleric.

But levels also reflect Hit Die, Hit Points, Skills, Feats, et al. So it is possible to be 20^th level and have a poorer chance of Raising someone than would a 5^th level Cleric. Why? Because you're "greedy." You give less money and less time to your God. Money and time necessary to build a temple. Time necessary to gather and convert worshipers, etc.

So these three spells – Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection – are available to all the Clerics in my game, regardless of their character's level. That's just how I play it.

No Cleric will ever bring someone back from the dead of their own power; only the power of their God will do it. So, does your God feel like doing you a favor? Have you given him/her a reason to?

For the Love of Older Editions

There's a reason why I prefer the "older" Editions and that's because of all the changes that took place between Editions. With the advent of 3^rd Edition – quickly followed by 3.5 – the "min/maxers" took over the game at the creative level.

I haven't really given it enough thought to put into words my thinking, but then I never had a blog before now either. Two posts rally got me to thinking about this again and I think that these are two posts that should be read by anyone truly interested in the game's development. One can be found at boingboing and the other is located at Gnome Stew.

The first post – Old School Dungeonsand Dragons – talks about how the game started to become "rule bound" and "combat oriented" and both statements are true. The new "Rules" were accompanied by more than a few Charts and Tables; it seems everything would be left to the dice, rather than to the DMs imagination.

Rather than "storytelling," the emphasis was placed on making the most powerful character possible using the "new" Skills, Feats and Combat stats. Role Playing was almost completely taken out of the game. When you consider the fact that the game was originally built upon Role Playing, that's quite a reversal.

The second one -- Classical Play;Niche Protection -- talks about the limitless "Skills" that were created for the new Edition, which only serve to make some Character Classes obsolete and unnecessary. One character can do anything! Man is that boring.

This post points out how a character can become unnecessary by certain other characters taking the appropriate Skills needed to eliminate the need for some characters all together. A character in the "new" Editions could legitimately become a "one man show."

At any rate, I'll allow these posts to "speak for themselves." I encourage you to read them. You might just find them as interesting as I did. They reflect my own thoughts and views on the matter quite well.

Thanks to Peter Bebergal and Walt Ciechanowski for sharing their thoughts with the rest of us.

For myself, I'll stick with the older Editions, like 2nd, and let my imagination run wild!

 

3.5 Feats & Other Things

Do I need to mention that there are too many of them? Didn't think so.

I remember when just being a 1^st level Character made you . . . "special." No more. Now we need an overabundance of Feats to make "us" even more "special."

Monsters are given Feats randomly, just had discussions about that in my RPoL game. "These guys don't even qualify for these Feats!" Dear Lord, somebody told you Life was . . . fair? Haven't really been living on your own yet, have you? ROFL

Life is never fair. Life is a Bitch . . . then it has puppies. I know, some of you thought that Life was a Bitch and then you died. No, trust me, the Bitch we call Life is definitely going to have a litter of puppies along the way. Believe that, you will experience the "puppies" before you go!

Anyway, there are just too many Feats in this Edition of the game for me. Add to that the fact that now players can be "Outsiders" and have "Estimated Character Levels." What kind of nonsense is that? What's your effective Character level? Then you cannot cast Fireball! If that isn't the biggest waste of time I've ever heard of. Nonsense.

One NPC found in the books is a 12^th level Wizard 4^th level Thief and 3^rd level Fighter, or something like that. I remember the Wizard part because they said this guy was a Lich. Really? He's only a 12^th level Wizard, so how did he ever cast the 9^th level spell required to become a Lich? B.S. in the extreme.

Edition 3.5 has gotten things so jacked up with unlimited Feats and ECLs that the people who play this Edition think they can do anything, including becoming a Lich as a 12^th level Wizard! The people who write this stuff can't even keep things straight amongst themselves! A 12^th level Lich . . . B.S.!

Anyway, I can see these "short" posts becoming more populous as I continue to learn more about 3.5. No wonder Maldin and I have never abandoned 2^nd Edition! Although, I will admit that I'm beginning to like d20 a little more than I like THAC0.

But don't tell anybody that! Sssh!