If you prefer to go into games blind, then you're not interesting in learning about the world you'll be playing in. That's an indictment of you, as a player, and not of the class. Which doesn't actually require metagaming, just so we're clear. That's a lazy criticism.
I also find it interesting how you went from glowing praise to...this. But, whatever, you do you.
I am keen to know what "this" is? I merely answered Frank's question, which was "why is it ok for other classes to metagame, and not the Ranger?". I'm reasonably sure my answer was clear, but to reiterate: It is no better nor worse for any class to metagame at creation, and I don't believe that people have any particular issue with the Ranger over any other class if they do metagame at creation (whether someone has an issue with metagaming at creation is up to them, I have no issue with it to be clear). I believe that the issue has been confused with the reliance of Ranger's to metagame at character creation to get full use of their abilities, which is what may make the Ranger unappealing to some, and especially, in my opinion, beginners, because there are more pitfalls to be made when making these choices at character creation than other classes.
Also, to be clear, I am not criticising the Ranger, I was merely trying to answer Frank's question. As to why this has caused so much apparent consternation I will never know.
Additionally, if the DM has created a world (campaign setting) I will more than happily dive deep into and use that in my creation, however this should not be confused with the campaign itself. I don't need to know that we'll be travelling by boat to get shipwrecked in some faraway unexplored exotic jungle to create a fun character to interact with the world, however knowledge that the majority of the setting is an archipelago would certainly help me shape my choices, especially in regards to background. Maybe I was a sailor, or a pirate, or perhaps I was a hermit, sequestered away on a sparse island unravelling the mysteries of the seas, it could be I was a noble who was recently shipwrecked and rescued and now I've sworn to pay back my rescuers.
Another example for natural explorer that I think is as plain as day would be the wisdom related skill animal handling and how that is related to many of the favored terrain choices, with forest, grassland, and mountains being the obvious ones. If you are a ranger with proficiency in animal handling and a favored terrain that features predominantly beats who pretty much have expertise all the time when making animal handling checks.
"This" would be harsh and unfair criticisms levied against the class. Criticisms that are, in my opinion, lazy and wrongheaded. You might not have intended to criticize, but reads like one. If you don't think metagaming is a problem, then don't bring it up in the first place.
Speaking of which, metagaming is most-commonly defined as having the character(s) act on information the player(s) know(s) but the character(s) do(es) not. Sorry for the parentheses, but it can apply just as much to an individual as to a collective. That said, I've noticed a lot of people, including both you and Frank, do not seem to operate under this definition. And if you have some other working definition, then I'd like to know it. Because that's a communication issue I'd like to see resolved.
It's not metagaming to ask for and receive basic information about the game. You seem to prefer ignorant decision-making. And for random, pick-up games that can work. But I find it adversarial and easily manipulative. It's reasonable for characters to know where they're starting off; be it a small-town tavern or shanghaied into working on a pirate ship. They, and their characters, should have a basic understanding of where the characters were and how they got to where they are. It's not metagaming to treat them as never having existed before the first die is cast. They're not all amnesiacs.
Characters wouldn't know how many hit points they have, but they certainly know how well they're feeling at the moment. They might not know their class level(s), but they know they're more experienced and capable than before. Those serve as abstractions to aid in roleplaying. If people want to have a serious conversation about how metagaming can suck the fun out of an encounter, that's fine. But this isn't the forum for that. And rangers are no more reliant on metagaming, or other reasonably acquired knowledge, than any other class to be effective.
"This" would be harsh and unfair criticisms levied against the class. Criticisms that are, in my opinion, lazy and wrongheaded. You might not have intended to criticize, but reads like one. If you don't think metagaming is a problem, then don't bring it up in the first place.
Speaking of which, metagaming is most-commonly defined as having the character(s) act on information the player(s) know(s) but the character(s) do(es) not. Sorry for the parentheses, but it can apply just as much to an individual as to a collective. That said, I've noticed a lot of people, including both you and Frank, do not seem to operate under this definition. And if you have some other working definition, then I'd like to know it. Because that's a communication issue I'd like to see resolved.
It's not metagaming to ask for and receive basic information about the game. You seem to prefer ignorant decision-making. And for random, pick-up games that can work. But I find it adversarial and easily manipulative. It's reasonable for characters to know where they're starting off; be it a small-town tavern or shanghaied into working on a pirate ship. They, and their characters, should have a basic understanding of where the characters were and how they got to where they are. It's not metagaming to treat them as never having existed before the first die is cast. They're not all amnesiacs.
Characters wouldn't know how many hit points they have, but they certainly know how well they're feeling at the moment. They might not know their class level(s), but they know they're more experienced and capable than before. Those serve as abstractions to aid in roleplaying. If people want to have a serious conversation about how metagaming can suck the fun out of an encounter, that's fine. But this isn't the forum for that. And rangers are no more reliant on metagaming, or other reasonably acquired knowledge, than any other class to be effective.
I've not levelled any (intentional) criticisms at the Ranger in response to Frank's question, as stated previously. I'm sorry that you've read it in such a negative light. I did not bring up metagaming, I was answering Frank's question, which was about metagaming, specifically in this case metagaming at character creation. If I hadn't spoken about metagaming in an answer to a question about metagaming then there would have been no point.
That is the definition of metagaming that I've been working under, and as Frank has responded also the one that he's been working under. I'm keen to know what you thought we thought metagaming is and how you arrived at that conclusion.
Asking where the campaign starts and making decisions based off that is not metagaming, asking where the campaign will be going after the initial start and basing your decisions off that is. If your DM freely provides this information that is up to them, and if you want to work that into character creation then so be it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am keen to know what "this" is? I merely answered Frank's question, which was "why is it ok for other classes to metagame, and not the Ranger?". I'm reasonably sure my answer was clear, but to reiterate: It is no better nor worse for any class to metagame at creation, and I don't believe that people have any particular issue with the Ranger over any other class if they do metagame at creation (whether someone has an issue with metagaming at creation is up to them, I have no issue with it to be clear). I believe that the issue has been confused with the reliance of Ranger's to metagame at character creation to get full use of their abilities, which is what may make the Ranger unappealing to some, and especially, in my opinion, beginners, because there are more pitfalls to be made when making these choices at character creation than other classes.
Also, to be clear, I am not criticising the Ranger, I was merely trying to answer Frank's question. As to why this has caused so much apparent consternation I will never know.
Additionally, if the DM has created a world (campaign setting) I will more than happily dive deep into and use that in my creation, however this should not be confused with the campaign itself. I don't need to know that we'll be travelling by boat to get shipwrecked in some faraway unexplored exotic jungle to create a fun character to interact with the world, however knowledge that the majority of the setting is an archipelago would certainly help me shape my choices, especially in regards to background. Maybe I was a sailor, or a pirate, or perhaps I was a hermit, sequestered away on a sparse island unravelling the mysteries of the seas, it could be I was a noble who was recently shipwrecked and rescued and now I've sworn to pay back my rescuers.
Another example for natural explorer that I think is as plain as day would be the wisdom related skill animal handling and how that is related to many of the favored terrain choices, with forest, grassland, and mountains being the obvious ones. If you are a ranger with proficiency in animal handling and a favored terrain that features predominantly beats who pretty much have expertise all the time when making animal handling checks.
"This" would be harsh and unfair criticisms levied against the class. Criticisms that are, in my opinion, lazy and wrongheaded. You might not have intended to criticize, but reads like one. If you don't think metagaming is a problem, then don't bring it up in the first place.
Speaking of which, metagaming is most-commonly defined as having the character(s) act on information the player(s) know(s) but the character(s) do(es) not. Sorry for the parentheses, but it can apply just as much to an individual as to a collective. That said, I've noticed a lot of people, including both you and Frank, do not seem to operate under this definition. And if you have some other working definition, then I'd like to know it. Because that's a communication issue I'd like to see resolved.
It's not metagaming to ask for and receive basic information about the game. You seem to prefer ignorant decision-making. And for random, pick-up games that can work. But I find it adversarial and easily manipulative. It's reasonable for characters to know where they're starting off; be it a small-town tavern or shanghaied into working on a pirate ship. They, and their characters, should have a basic understanding of where the characters were and how they got to where they are. It's not metagaming to treat them as never having existed before the first die is cast. They're not all amnesiacs.
Characters wouldn't know how many hit points they have, but they certainly know how well they're feeling at the moment. They might not know their class level(s), but they know they're more experienced and capable than before. Those serve as abstractions to aid in roleplaying. If people want to have a serious conversation about how metagaming can suck the fun out of an encounter, that's fine. But this isn't the forum for that. And rangers are no more reliant on metagaming, or other reasonably acquired knowledge, than any other class to be effective.
I pretty much agree with that interpretation of the definition of meta gaming.
I've not levelled any (intentional) criticisms at the Ranger in response to Frank's question, as stated previously. I'm sorry that you've read it in such a negative light. I did not bring up metagaming, I was answering Frank's question, which was about metagaming, specifically in this case metagaming at character creation. If I hadn't spoken about metagaming in an answer to a question about metagaming then there would have been no point.
That is the definition of metagaming that I've been working under, and as Frank has responded also the one that he's been working under. I'm keen to know what you thought we thought metagaming is and how you arrived at that conclusion.
Asking where the campaign starts and making decisions based off that is not metagaming, asking where the campaign will be going after the initial start and basing your decisions off that is. If your DM freely provides this information that is up to them, and if you want to work that into character creation then so be it.