>You accidentally bump into a woman clad in black. She begins fleeing at once.
Do you chase her?
No, I pull the wallet I picked off her out and go through it for cash.
>>44523660
Of course I chase her, utterly enraptured and smitten with th black-clad beauty.
>>44523660
>FACE ISNT COVERED
CHASING HER WITH STONES
>>44523660
>Do you chase her?
Nope. Because that's a trick I always pull on my own players: Some stranger starts running away from the party. Even though they've never seen this stranger before and have heard absolutely no news or anything about them, they'll ALWAYS give chase. Because that's what players do, for some reason.
>>44523660
This is why they invented the hookshot.
>>44523660
No, but I check and see if I've been robbed.
>>44523715
They assume they've seen her before.
>>44523715
Idiots, they should just shoot her in the back of the head
>>44523694
SLUT ALERT!!!!!
>>44523738
They could just ask me "Have I seen this woman before?" But they usually don't. And even the couple of times they did, they still gave chase. I really don't know what it is about this phenomenon and my particular players, but the moment anybody/anything starts running away, they got to go after it.
>>44523741
Because that certainly won't draw the attention of the authorities.
>plot hook happens
>do you ignore it?
>>44523660
she probably running to the cops because I bump raped her, better to run away
>>44523756
They noticed the Quest marker.
I would run home and masturbate to the thought of the woman touching me.
>>44523660
She is not an elf so I'm not chasing her.
It might be a trap.
>>44523774
>shitty plot hook happens
Fixed that for you.
And all it would take is just a couple more descriptors to make it non-shitty: "You accidentally bump into a woman YOU KNOW clad in black. She begins fleeing at once."
>>44523660
No? Who the fuck cares?
>>44523771
Shoot the authorities in the front of the head
>>44523660
If she's fleeing after bumping into me, she probably stole something from me.
>>44523715
Or because she's obviously a pickpocket.
No, I'm not a crazy person.
At worst she stole a wallet with a small amount of money and a debit card.
Maybe my phone, which is more of a pain, but that's why I have two backups.
>>44523660
No. I merely command her to STOP [Dominate 1].
>>44523660
A bad reflex kicks in and I draw my bow.
>>44523715
>Even though they've never seen this stranger before and have heard absolutely no news or anything about them, they'll ALWAYS give chase. Because that's what players do, for some reason.
1) It looks like a plot hook. If you turn down a plot hook and the GM doesn't know what to do, you don't want to be in that situation. Safer to follow or stop the guy just in case.
2) The person might have stolen something, which is one of the gravest offenses that can be committed against a PC. The inventory of a PC is his temple, his castle, his hallowed ground, and is off-limits to NPCs. As such, the desecration of this space cannot go unanswered. The sanctity of the inventory space must be protected, at any cost.
3) Even if the person doesn't harbor ill intent toward the PCs, that behavior is still unusual enough to warrant investigation.
>>44523660
I check my pockets first, OP. Did she steal anything?
>>44523660
why would i? My dex is through the roof, so is my reflex save, i can probobly just catch her
>>44523660
I don't. And before you say anything: I don't have my wallet with me either.
No money, nothing she could steal without me noticing: my enchanted necklace of teeth is the only thing of value that she could possibly steal, but not without me noticing of course.
>>44523856
Have you been spying on my players, anon?
>>44523721
*hookershot
If she stole anything, I would have had to roll something to catch her, I did not, and thus I don't care.
If she stole something from me without having the option of catching her, than the GM is a terrible GM, and I also don't care.
>>44523660
No but I do task one of my smaller flying drones to track and or tag her while I check to see if I've been pickpocketed.
>>44524979
>Your GM rolled for you in secret
Post YFW you just let her run away with the MacGuffin because metagaming.
>>44523660
I ell the nearest town guard and we all gather in a merry chase. Seriously, what scrub tier thief begins running before she's even suspected?
>detect evil
>>44523798
If she's an elf, I start chasing her because she might be a trap.
>>44523660
>Zen Ki Detect
I can find anywhere and anytime as long as she's within several miles of me. Might as well find a seat and observe what happens to her.
>justtechnicianthings
>>44523660
Hold person, charm person, then question her. Depending on the answers I get, I may or may not report her to the authorities.
>>44525639
>>44523660
>Do you chase her?
No, it's probably just a muslim woman and is rushing home to get beaten by her husband for accidentally touching another person in public.
>>44525276
If the GM rolled for me in secret, it is just as bad. I would still not care because I would STILL have a terrible GM.
>>44523660
see that she takes an arrow in the knee
>>44526238
>NO, I NEED to be able to metagame or else you are a TERRIBLE DM!!1!
>>44526374
>letting the GM roll for you.
Why even bother playing? A GM that rolls for you is the ultimate railroad. You had no chance of not having your shit stolen. A GM like that does not give his players any agency. Combat is meaningless because regardless of what happens he wants a very specific thing to happen. If you are supposed to win a combat, no amount of charging in and doing stupid shit is going to kill you. If you are supposed to lose a combat, no amount of strategy or luck is going to let you win. These GMs should be avoided at any cost, because they are not actually interested in letting their players PLAY A GAME. They just want a shitty podium to tell their mediocre story.
>>44526238
what if she stole something, and DM doesn't have you roll to notice missing object until the next time you use an item?
>>44526506
>You had no chance of not having your shit stolen. A GM like that does not give his players any agency.
If you don't trust your DM in the first place, then why are you even going to that game? Did you have a bad experience in the past and now you've adopted an extremest position because of it, or are you just a sperg?
>>44526637
Because opposed checks.
>>44526672
That is the point I am trying to make here, anon. If the GM is as shit as this one is,I wouldn't fucking be in his game.
>>44525639
Is this a game or just something someone painted?
>>44526705
>That is the point I am trying to make here, anon. If the GM is as shit as this one is,I wouldn't fucking be in his game.
But you said any DM that says they're rolling in secret is lying, meaning you don't trust anyone unless you're watching everything they are doing. If the DM is good, you can trust them, if they aren't, leave the game. Rolling in secret isn't some Always Evil alignment action only or anything.
>>44526705
>Because opposed checks.
How about this, then?
>woman clad in black bumps into you
>DM chooses an appropriate item to be stolen
>player asks to do an opposing roll to check for stolen item
or
>player doesn't think anything of it
>reaches for some food later, notices that the artifact he found in the crypt is no longer in his bag
Expecting the DM to ask you to do an opposing roll immediately after you get robbed is as much of a railroad as them rolling for you.
>>44526773
Rolling in secret is fine. Doing something where I have no chance of catching it, and then excusing it by saying he rolled for me in secret is the problem. If he wasn't effectively fudging it in his favor, he would have no reason to not ask me to roll instead of "rolling for me" in secret.
>>44526793
Because the GM and players have to play by the same set of rules. If we are playing on the same rules, I hope he doesn't mind me stealing from every NPC ever, because they don't get an opposed check.
>>44526833
> I hope he doesn't mind me stealing from every NPC ever, because they don't get an opposed check.
You sound like a pretty shitty person to play with. You should try relaxing and havingfunwhen playing tabletop.
>>44526833
>Because the GM and players have to play by the same set of rules. If we are playing on the same rules, I hope he doesn't mind me stealing from every NPC ever, because they don't get an opposed check.
If the NPC rolls an opposed check, they will not act on the knowledge that a roll happened, win or lose.
>>44526833
>Rolling in secret is fine. Doing something where I have no chance of catching it, and then excusing it by saying he rolled for me in secret is the problem. If he wasn't effectively fudging it in his favor, he would have no reason to not ask me to roll instead of "rolling for me" in secret.
You however, said you have no problem having your character act on the information that there was no opposed roll to make an in character decision, which is why a good DM would not tell you, in particular, that a roll that your character can't possibly know happened, was a fail.
So kinda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHiM5RHOwhk
>>44526833
You get an opposed check, you just don't know you had to make it.
Should you succeed, you would know something is up and be able to stop her immediately.
>>44527010
Sure, but I have no way of knowing whether or not the GM fudged the roll. Which he did. Because if he didn't, he would let me roll. There is LITERALLY no reason to ever roll dice FOR your players.
>>44527058
Says the unrepentant metagamer
>>44527058
> but I have no way of knowing whether or not the GM fudged the roll
But that's true of literally any time the GM rolls for anything. You sound like you need to work on your trust issues more, anon
>>44527136
That isn't an argument, try again.
>>44523715
My players do that, often with murderous intent because they consider it either a challenge or some kind of insult.
>>44527144
Optimally, a GM should roll everything in full view of the group. Secret rolls should only be allowed if if the roll does not directly effect a party member in a way where that person could influence it if it wasn't secret.
>>44526374
>Not knowing that every PC has an innate sense of the condition and location of items they have on them at all times, and are immediately aware if anything so much as shifts.
>>44524970
niiiiiiiice.
>>44527147
I already posted my argument, right here >>44526952 but you either aren't very observant, or you're ignoring me, so either way, I think it's YOU that needs to try again.
>>44527300
Your argument was "the gm is good because he doesn't allow the players to operate on the same set of rules that he is operating on."
This is so retarded that I assumed it was bait, and didn't bother responding to it.
>>44523715
players do it beacuse its what people do in real life
>>44527192
Did you ever stop to think that a DM fudging the rules - or at the very least reserving the right to do so - might possibly be doing so for the betterment of the campaign? You make it sound like the DM is DMing as a chore that his mother makes him do for allowance, like he just wants to kill the party and get it over with as soon as possible.
>>44526238
>thinks players should make there own roles to notice things
shit tier player detected.
>>44527339
The dm is allowing the players to operate on the same set of rules though. 'every perception check is rolled by the players' is not a rule. His argument was that if the DM is playing with someone who he can't trust not to metagame, he should roll perception for them and only tell them if they succeed.
I gotta pose a hypothetical to you though. Your characters going through town, and the DM says 'roll a perception check'. You fail the check. What do you do?
>>44527376
If the GM wants to play a game without rules, he should not be playing a game with established rules.
>>44527339
No, you aren't operating on the same set of rules that the NPCs are, if they were operating the same way you do, hiding would be useless, because no matter what you rolled, the DM would just say "They know where you are because I know where you were when you rolled to hide", same with stealing, "I know you rolled to steal and thus so does the NPC". You yourself have stated that you would have your character act based on a roll not happening, meaning YOU are not acting under the same rules the NPCs are, not the other way around.
>>44527400
If the player is operating on the same set of rules, than I should be allowed to steal from NPCs without them having a chance to respond. The argument posited is that the GM should not allow the player to have this information, because he might use it. Thus the the presented argument is that the GM should maintain a seperate set of rules for himself to operate on.
If I were to fail a perception check, I would continue on as if nothing happened, because clearly I did not see what happened. That is the fucking point.
>>44526730
It's from a short image set.
>>44523660
>woman clad in black
i quietly and expeditiously find my way out of the Sharia controlled neighborhood.
>>44527479
>If I were to fail a perception check, I would continue on as if nothing happened, because clearly I did not see what happened. That is the fucking point.
But if you didn't roll a perception check, you would have you character believe for no in game reason, that there is nothing to notice. That IS metagaming.
>>44527479
What exactly is the different rule the NPCs are operating on, from your PoV? It's not that they get perception checks while you don't, since you got a perception check which the DM rolled. It's not that they don't have to roll to steal things, because the DM rolled that.
You can say 'I don't like the DM rolling perception for me', that's fine. But don't pretend the DM's running a different ruleset for the NPCs, because you did have a chance to respond with the perception roll, it's just that the DM rolled it. Yes, if the DM had you auto-fail the roll, that would be wrong of them, but the question isn't 'why don't you like DMs making you auto-fail rolls?' it's 'why don't you like DMs rolling for you when appropriate?'
>>44527521
Yes, if I was not allowed a roll, I would continue on as if nothing had happened, because I have no reason to suspect anything. Were it revealed later that something had been stolen from me, than I would have reasonable knowledge that something had been stolen from me without me having a chance to catch it.
>>44527579
Because there is no reason for a GM to roll for me unless he is fudging it. If he is not fudging it, he would have no qualms letting me roll my own check.
To be on even terms here, I would get the information for the NPC, and be able to roll for him in secret. Because that is what the GM is doing.
>>44527585
In real life, if someone bumps into you, you don't know if they tried to steal from you or not, unless you notice them do it, and even a decent DM will make NPCs abide by that rule. You, however, don't. Your character is allowed, by you, to know that a roll didn't happen, as you posted here >>44524979 that is metagaming, meaning that YOU are not playing the game the same way the DM is, not the other way around.
>>44527705
You seem to think that RPGs are a perfect representation of real life.
They are not.
RPGs abide by a set of rules that everybody operates under equally.
If what you are saying is how you optimally play, I assume you abandon all pretenses of rules, and when you say "I attack" you let your GM decide what happens, because your character could not possibly have any idea of the system of rules under which he operates, thus you are unable to make decisions based on rules for him, right? After all, that would be metagaming.
If she's cute yeh I'll "chase" her
It's not like women can outrun men so it'll be a fun flirty game
>>44527618
>Because there is no reason for a GM to roll for me unless he is fudging it
There is, he may be concerned about metagaming, which is a perfectly valid concern. Either way, you're not arguing against the DM rolling dice in private, you're arguing against the DM fudging rolls, which is an entirely different beast, albeit the the latter often comes with the former.
For example, my Iron Gods DM rolls perception/sense motive checks for us in private after a first player had his character go 'yeah, that guy seems suspicious for some reason' after he failed a sense motive check. The result is what would be expected; sometimes we notice ambushes/lies, sometimes we don't. Point is, rolling dice in private=/=fudging rolls, and that is not the only reason someone would have for rolling dice in private.
>>44527754
So, what you are saying, is that the DM can't have an NPC that you bumped into accidentally while chasing someone else think you stole something from them, because the NPC should be aware that a roll didn't happen? Because that is what your PC in your example up above did. Your character was aware that no roll took place, and you are trying to defend that by saying "Then do you play without rules in your games lol?"
>>44527860
Rules are available to all players. If the GM makes up a rule, that rule should be available to players. That isn't metagaming, that is having an understanding of the rules under which the game operates.
>>44527902
And if you're doing things that NPCs cant, the DM should allow this... because? That's what metagaming is, doing something outside of the rules.
>>44527408
But the rulebook addresses Rule 0. Even if it didn't, the thinking that "DM fudging rolls == DM throwing out every single rule of the game" is utterly retarded. Just stop posting please.
>>44527902
>>44527956
In other words, unless the DM would let NPCs act on the knowledge that no roll has happened in a circumstance, you are breaking the rules that the DM is attempting to make apply to everyone equally, by rolling in secret, every time you let your character act based on knowing that no roll happened.
>>44523774
>>44524054
>plot hook happens
>It looks like a plot hook.
Meta-gaming fucks.
>>44527956
The character is doing nothing the NPCs can't do.
From a character standpoint, they got burgled and decided "yeah, I want to do that to." Which is odd, but not unreasonable. My out of character knowledge allows me to know the rules under which stealing operates, which is not metagaming, merely having a basic understanding of the rules.
Not to mention the system under which you propose literally encourages more metagaming. If I get burgled, and aren't allowed to roll for it, I would still become suspicious of the person. Not only that, I would be perfectly justified to be suspicious, because I do not know that I failed a roll, despite the fact that my character failed kthe roll, I DON'T KNOW THAT, so I can reasonably stab this person in the face.
>>44528077
>My out of character knowledge allows me to know the rules under which stealing operates, which is not metagaming, merely having a basic understanding of the rules.
Letting you character act based solely on this out of character knowledge is the definition of metagaming, however.
>>44528077
>Not to mention the system under which you propose literally encourages more metagaming. If I get burgled, and aren't allowed to roll for it, I would still become suspicious of the person. Not only that, I would be perfectly justified to be suspicious, because I do not know that I failed a roll, despite the fact that my character failed kthe roll, I DON'T KNOW THAT, so I can reasonably stab this person in the face.
Are you aware that you just said "If I believe someone MAY have stolen from me, I am justified in stabbing them"? Because that is what you just said. Not knowing if the person that bumped into your character even tried to steal from you or not is EXACTLY HOW YOUR CHARACTER IS SUPPOSED TO ACT, on both a failed roll and a lack of any roll at all on an opposed check to notice if they've been stolen from. Excluding the last part where you attack someone purely because you know you wont get in trouble for it in real life since you're playing a game (aka metagaming), the rest of that is the literal opposite of metagaming, and that's me using literally correctly. That is why a good GM would not let YOU, IN PARTICULAR, not know that a roll happened, because that is how you are supposed to have you character act, without any knowledge of rolling existing or not existing.
>>44528264
>purely
I'm going to correct this part of my post, not attacking them only because it wont get you in trouble in real life, but rather not having any real life consequences for the attack stopping you from attacking someone.
>>44528264
I told you, my character decided to pick up thievery. Nothing wrong with that. Having a basic knowledge of how it works in this system enables me to.
How am I supposed to know that aren't suspicious if I do not get a roll? I don't even get to know that I don't think they are suspicious because the GM literally does not allow me to know if I think they are suspicious within the rules. Thus it is perfectly reasonably to be suspicious in character, because I don't know what rules are being operated under.
>>44523660
oh my god yes!! I have to apologize!
>>44528381
Yes, you are supposed to have your character be suspicious when someone bumps into them if it fits the character. Here, let me illustrate my point.
Example 1:
DM: Someone in the crowd wearing a thick dark cloak suddenly bumps into you, roll a d20
You: I rolled a 9
DM: The person then begins to run away from you as fast as they are able.
You would probably have your character be suspicions of being stolen from here, yes? it's only natural, from an in character view, for anyone not naive to be suspicious here. It is actually not metagaming to have most characters be suspicious here.
Example 2
DM: Someone in the crowd wearing a thick dark cloak suddenly bumps into you, and then begins running away from you as fast as they are able.
You, here, have your character 100% confident that nothing was stolen, even though the EXACT same thing happened in character! This is what I mean by metagaming. There is no IN GAME difference between these two circumstances, yet your character acts differently due to out of game reasons, the definition of metagaming. You character has no way to know that a roll did or did not take place here, why would your character act any differently then?
>>44527485
Google gives nothing, got a name?
>>44523756
Maybe they are conditioned to chase her like she's a laser dot.
>>44528599
By your logic, I would not be able to justify being suspicious on the first example, because my knowledge of what has happened is based off of out of character knowledge of rules.
>>44528701
Read again m80, like I said, if you would be suspicious of something IF there was no roll, then it's not metagaming for your character to be suspicious even though you, as the player, knew there was a roll. That is actually the best rule of thumb for determining metagaming, 'If I as a player didn't know about X out of game thing, what would I have my character do?" IF a player was incapable of using that kind of reasoning (someone who has a hard time thinking about what they would do if they didn't know something that they do know), then THAT is a reason why a good DM would hide rolls, to help the player not metagame,
>DM: A woman in a dark cloak bumps in to you-
>I roll perception to see if she is stealing from me.
What is hard about this?
I'm in an ERP campaign so we give chance because there's a 95% chance this turns into a gangbang.
We take turns with her orifices and then alternate finishing inside her asshole.
We roll to see who has the most voluminous creampie.
>>44528841
The difference is that by the rules, I would be suspicious in character, because that is what the die determined. (Assuming that that die roll beat the DC, your example does not state whether or not it does, so I am still not sure, but I am assuming it does)
In the second example, I am not allowed to know whether or not I am allowed to be suspicious by the rules, as such, I must act on in character knowledge, which is to say, a person in a black cloak bumped into me, and is now running away from me. This is a viable reason to be suspicious, because the GM does not allow me to know whether or not I am suspicious within the rules.
>>44523858
^
I think this is what a lot of people would assume, so chasing isn't really unreasonable.
>>44529059
>The difference is that by the rules, I would be suspicious in character, because that is what the die determined. (Assuming that that die roll beat the DC, your example does not state whether or not it does, so I am still not sure, but I am assuming it does)
>In the second example, I am not allowed to know whether or not I am allowed to be suspicious by the rules, as such, I must act on in character knowledge, which is to say, a person in a black cloak bumped into me, and is now running away from me. This is a viable reason to be suspicious, because the GM does not allow me to know whether or not I am suspicious within the rules.
Failing the roll isn't what makes you suspicious, passing it makes you aware of something, failing means you aren't aware of it, not that you are suspicious that there is something you didn't notice. It's the bumping into you that means it's not metagaming to be suspicious here whether their is a roll or not. If the only reason your character is suspicions of something is that there was a roll that the DM didn't tell you the purpose of afterwards, that is metagaming.
>>44529136
My reason of suspicion, in character, is that somebody bumped into me and is now running away very fast. The fact that the the die roll was hidden has no effect on my suspicion, because I don't know it happened. Thus the only knowledge I can rely on is in character knowledge, and my in character knowledge tells me that a person wearing a black cloak bumped into me, and is now running away from me, which is pretty stereotypical thief behavior. Given that in this situation, I am not allowed to know the rules, I cannot be criticized for not following rules that the GM does not even let me know are in place.
>>44529238
So, are you saying that you would have your character act appropriately to what the characters in game knowledge is, or not, in this circumstance?
>>44529538
Certainly, I have been the whole time. Rules are a separate entity from in/out character knowledge however. Which is the part you don't seem to get.
>>44529582
And what exactly about that do I not get?
>>44529596
That knowledge of how the thievery rules work is not metagaming, merely knowledge of the rules.
>>44529613
And having your character act based on concepts they can't know in game is metagaming, like that fact that a roll did or did not happen. If your character would act differently in a situation where a roll didn't happen when you would have expected one to happen out of game, that is metagaming.
>>44523660
I wait for the inevitable arguements to break out
(Looks at threat, blabla AlwaysRollInOpen; ThatsMetaGamingYouDontMetagame) yeah these.
People like you are the reason, I when GM, sometimes roll secret dice that have absolutly no meaning at all, simply because I like to see my players going apeshit. He rolled, so that must mean something....
Ah captcha; Choose all pictures with steaks. google likes me ;-)
>>44529678
Basing character actions on concepts they don't understand is literally required to play any system with rules. Because if not, you cannot reasonably make any decisions that rely on a ruleset to work.
Otherwise, as stated before, if you attack, you would have to let the GM decide what happens, because your character can't possibly know how combat rules work. How can your character level up? That is a gaming abstraction used to show your character gaining strength, but in character would be incomprehensible, yet in most systems, leveling up your character would not be considered metagaming, would it?
You, the player, controls the character that is in a system. This requires a certain level of abstraction from how a person would normally act, because there are literally rules that govern how your character acts. If those rules are not present, you cannot reasonably criticize any action, because there are no rules to govern what the character can or can't know.
>>44529828
>Basing character actions on concepts they don't understand is literally required to play any system with rules.
Yes, that they don't understand is the key. My character doesn't know that I need to roll a d20 for him to attack in combat, but he knows if he attacks someone, he can either hit or miss them. My parents can use the internet, but they have no idea how to program browsers or web pages, they just know it works. No human knows everything about how the human brain works, but we all know that we have them and they work. Just because your character doesn't know that you're sitting at a table or computer rolling dice to decide if what they're doing succeeds or not does not mean that they can't make decisions with what they can know in game.
>>44529937
Yeah, and my theoretical character can know that a person in a black cloak who bumped into them and than proceeded to run away very fast is very likely a thief. They might even determine "wow, I'm amazing and that thief made off with my shit really easily, I bet I could do that too." There is a perfectly reasonably in character explanation for out of character concepts. Neither of these conclusions require out of character knowledge, but they are required to have out of character knowledge to function within a game system.
>>44530058
>There is a perfectly reasonably in character explanation for out of character concepts. Neither of these conclusions require out of character knowledge, but they are required to have out of character knowledge to function within a game system.
Yes, but ALSO the character should not react to things that there is no way of knowing in game, "my character knows that stealing is a thing that can work" and "My character will act differently here because you didn't ask me to roll dice" are not intrinsically linked. You character can know that stealing works without also knowing that a die was rolled when it happens.
>>44530164
My character isn't acting differently because the GM didn't ask me to roll dice though, my character is acting differently because I have an understanding of the rules that allow me to do something. For the same reason a character may not reasonably believe they could take on a dragon, they will anyways, because mechanically they can, and the controller of that character knows this, and thus the characters heads into battle regardless.
>>44523660
I chase her while saying "No come back I'm not a rapist!"
>>44530328
If there is no in game difference, why is acting differently in game because of expressly out of game information not metagaming? I have already established that your character does not need to know anything about the mechanics of the game to still be able to make decisions, and you didn't try to argue against that, so why is taking things you as a player know and the character doesn't not metagaming? If your character is strong enough to beat a dragon, even if they don't know their strength bonus or the pluses on their sword, there should be plenty of in game things that your character can use as a metric to know that they can beat a dragon, like knowing what they've beaten in the past and how their power relates to that of a dragon, or they've found out the dragon's weak point or any number of actual in game reasons. But if your character truly believes that they can't beat a dragon and have no strong enough in game reason to do so (like trying to defend their home even if they think it's futile or wanting to have a warrior's death or some such), then making your character go to fight that dragon only because you know that they can win with out of game knowledge, that is metagaming.
Everything is better when you accept that metagaming is okay. People saying it's not okay are creating needless problems and stress for themselves.
>>44530566
How am I supposed to know my character is strong without considering out of game metrics? Am I allowed to perhaps, consult out of game concepts for what my character would reasonably be able to do, and thus base my decisions on them?
So what your saying is that my character could reasonably believe they would be a good thief based on in character knowledge that somebody got away with it easily, and they consider themselves to be fast and dexterous enough to do it themselves?
>>44523774
I like to mess with my player's meta-senses. Like the time they spent like 5 minutes trying to inspect a pair of gargoyle statues over the archway of a door.
Sometimes it's just a statue, guys.
>>44527058
Rocks fall, metagamers die.
>>44530647
>when you accept that metagaming is okay
>>44530660
>How am I supposed to know my character is strong without considering out of game metrics? Am I allowed to perhaps, consult out of game concepts for what my character would reasonably be able to do, and thus base my decisions on them?
>So what your saying is that my character could reasonably believe they would be a good thief based on in character knowledge that somebody got away with it easily, and they consider themselves to be fast and dexterous enough to do it themselves?
Your character doesn't know the exact numbers, but they know that they are more agile than most people and that they've been practicing pick pocketing for most of their life since they grew up as a street urchin and joined the thieves guild. Another character may be pretty certain that he can beat an adult dragon because he's been hunting storm giants and he's heard that dragons aren't any worse, plenty of in game reasons that are based on game mechanics that the character has a way of figuring out in an in game way (My character has 18 Strength and can lift X amount of weight, and through this metric can understand that he is stronger than that guy who has 16 strength and can't lift as much). The character doesn't know those game mechanics, but can have an in game understanding of their effects. The fact that chance is actually a die rolled by some dude who's running my life is not something that a character has any in game way of determining, so having the character act differently based on the fact that a die wasn't rolled is metagaming.
>>44530861
I told you though, it isn't based off of the incident where a die wasn't rolled, it was based on knowledge of the rule of how it works in the system.
It makes no difference to me when I learned it. If the GM had told us at the beginning of the game before we rolled characters "this is how thieving works in this system" I would still be "sweet, I'm going to filch so many things." and make a character who likes to steal things. Is that better or worse?
It actually doesn't fucking matter. My character becomes a thief either way, and it isn't based on the incident in question, it is based on how the rules work. If this is metagaming, than literally rolling up a character is metagaming, because you are creating a character with the purpose of adhering to a system of rules. If you make a fighter, you are making a character specifically to use the rules of martial combat to play. By knowing the rules of martial combat, you are thus affecting your characters actions by choosing to create that character in a way that uses those rules to your advantage.
>>44523660
It's a WITCH
I attempt to give chase while smiting ahead of me
>>44531003
>"this is how thieving works in this system" I would still be "sweet, I'm going to filch so many things." and make a character who likes to steal things. Is that better or worse?
What rule are you going by here?
>>44531152
The rule that the GM made up where the thief is allowed to roll the victim's roll for them hidden, and the victim isn't allowed to be suspicious about it.
>>44523715
It is delicious bait, you must catch it.
>>44530730
>Sometimes it's just a statue, guys.
You goddamned fucking liar, you're got something going on behind that screen, I fucking know it
Just spring the trap you fuck
I chase it in hopes that its a DM and 2-3 people willing to play a game with me and be patient and teach me how to be comfortable in a group setting.
>>44531181
You NOT being suspicious since there was no roll was the thing I've been saying was metagaming this ENTIRE TIME! Why have you been acting like that was the basis of my argument this entire time when I have said many times that that is what I am arguing against! If you understand now that your rule has noting to do with my own arguments, then you need to go back and reread this entire discussion to actually understand what I was saying.
>>44531268
Man, why are you even arguing with me if you agree then?
>>44523660
Probably not.
I mean, there's obviously money to be made there, but chances are it's either chump change, or more trouble than it's worth.
I'm probably on a job already, and anyway I don't get out of bed for less than ten large.
I make a mental note to mention her the next time I see my Fixer, just in case there's a little something in it for me. If the setting is modern/future, I'll talk to my Fixer in real time, or run my own Net Agents on her as a background process.
>>44531311
Agree with what, specifically?
>>44523660
She just challenged me to a race and had a headstart. Of course I chase her.
>>44531371
>>44531268
>You NOT being suspicious since there was no roll was the thing I've been saying was metagaming
You are apparently stating that not being suspicious when there was no roll is metagaming, so being suspicious when there is no roll is not metagaing, yes? That was part of the argument some time ago. Which means that my character is equally justified in being suspicious whether or not a die is rolled is fine. So great, I win that part. Thanks.
I mean, it also has very little to do with the current argument, which is "is knowing the rules to the game you are playing, and letting the rules dictate what your character do metagaming." So I guess you still have a reason to argue your inane point if you want.
>>44531523
>Which means that my character is equally justified in being suspicious whether or not a die is rolled is fine. So great, I win that part. Thanks.
You said that your character would NOT be suspicions about a situation that seems a great deal like a theft as long as dice were NOT rolled
.>>44524979
>If she stole anything, I would have had to roll something to catch her, I did not, and thus I don't care.
You do not win this part of the argument. If you would like to try and win that part of the argument, you will need to supply me with some more reasoning, because what you've supplied so far hasn't cut it.
>>44531523
>I mean, it also has very little to do with the current argument, which is "is knowing the rules to the game you are playing, and letting the rules dictate what your character do metagaming." So I guess you still have a reason to argue your inane point if you want.
Also, I am aware that you have been intentionally misrepresenting my arguments, but I won't let that get in the way of trying to have a discussion, as long as you are still willing to do some talking, rather than having post consisting of nothing but name calling or the like.
>>44523660
No because I'm not a creep.
>>44531659
That particular post assumes that the GM is operating under standard rules, in which case I have no reason to be suspicious, because under a standard set of non-made-up rules, I would get an opposed check.
We have progressed to a point in the argument where I am suspicious because I am aware that a rule exists where the GM can steal things without a roll.
>>44531741
Then by all means, continue.
>>44531825
>That particular post assumes that the GM is operating under standard rules, in which case I have no reason to be suspicious, because under a standard set of non-made-up rules, I would get an opposed check.
You did, you just are not aware of it, just like your character is not aware of any of the dice rolls being made. The DM made the decision that all perception based die rolls would be rolled by him, and you agreed to this because you trust the GM not to cheat. This is the stance that my argument assumes. The reasoning the DM has for doing this is that you do not seem to understand the concept of metagaming, and the DM wanted to help you not metagame, since metagaming isn't a concept that the current game is exploring, but if you would like, he could make a campaign with metagaming as a central theme sometime if you would be interested, and to contrast with the current game.
>>44531915
Your assumptions also base a lot about me you don't know. For example, I would never agree to let the GM roll for me in secret, because I would not, in fact, trust him to not cheat. I also need no help not-metagaming. If he asks me to roll an opposed check when somebody burgles me, if I roll well, I'll try to stop them. If I roll low, I won't give a shit because the rules dictate my character thinks nothing of it.
>>44531825
So basically, you would not be suspicious of the person if your character failed your perception check that your GM asks you to make to notice your +5 sword and death-mcguffin from your bag and will have your character watch her bump into yours and run off?
And you wouldn't act on the knowledge that the woman has stolen these items from you?
>>44532049
If I notice that, than clearly I have passed my check, and would thus be able to reasonably go after her.
>>44532037
>Your assumptions also base a lot about me you don't know.
Not quite, because all of this, like a tabletop game, is partly a game of pretend. All of these situations are theoretical, so I'm not assuming that these are actually true of you, they are just there for the sake of argument.
>>44532136
Regardless, it is as stated. I would not agree to those terms. And if I did, you can be damn sure I wouldn't keep things on me that could be easily stolen.
>>44532037
>If I roll low, I won't give a shit because the rules dictate my character thinks nothing of it.
So your character wouldn't give a shit if a masked woman suddenly loomed up in front of you, declared "Behold! I am the master pickpocket Shadowthief! Be amazed at my abilities!" then you are asked to roll perception vs her pickpocket skills, and roll low,and all you feel is an uncomfortable grope-
Then the master pickpocket cackles loudly and holds up your priceless mcguffin that was in your back pocket, and declares "Ha ha, yes! This will be a pretty expensive item to sell to those villanous liches! Goodbye, Fool! Know you have been bested by I, Shadowthief!"
-You and your character wouldn't give a shit because the rules dictate you were unaware of the theft?
>>44532204
So you can't imagine a fictional world where those conditions are true and judge your actions based on those conditions?
>>44532207
A thief acquires an item without being caught. This person literally tells you she is doing it, and is thus reasonable to believe she stole it from you. I may not literally be able to catch her in the act, but than she literally tells you she did it. So it doesn't matter. That is also a wholly different situation than the one at hand, which implies simply knocking into her, if I rolled low, that translates to my character not thinking anything of it. Because the dice are an abstraction to tell you how good your character did at a specific task. If I rolled low, it implies that I have no reason to suspect this person.
>>44532262
Certainly, I can. But that is not what the argument is predicated on. Your argument implies that I am arguing for something I would not be arguing for under the circumstances.
>>44532347
There are times where logical deduction can be useful and does not in fact need to be rolled for.
If a villainous character that has been described as being known for creating cleverly hidden traps but also a bit stupid cries out "Ho Ho, I hope my foes pursuing me don't run through this ABSOLUTELY UNTRAPPED DOORWAY" and then the DM asks you to roll perception, and when you fail he tells you that your character does not notice the pit trap directly below the doorway
-And you also have an expensive teleport scroll you can use to pounce on the villain on the other side of the doorway -
Would you demand your character has an intelligence roll to not act like an idiot, or just have them run like an idiot into the pit trap because "they didn't see it"?
>>44532517
Yes, I agree. However, traps also rely on the the victim not knowing about them. By knowing about them, I am thus able to reasonably be suspicious without having to roll for it. However, once again, this is not analogous to the previous situation.
>>44532347
>Certainly, I can. But that is not what the argument is predicated on. Your argument implies that I am arguing for something I would not be arguing for under the circumstances.
I'm trying to prove that the situation I described is in fact, not bad DMing, since the crux of the argument is that any DM doing this would be a bad DM, as stated by you, here
>>44526238
>If the GM rolled for me in secret, it is just as bad. I would still not care because I would STILL have a terrible GM.
The only way to "win" an argument is to get the other person to see your point of view, so I don't see how
"The DM made the decision that all perception based die rolls would be rolled by him, and you agreed to this because you trust the GM not to cheat"
is not a valid premise to base an argument on, since this premise simply assumes that the DM is trusted not to cheat, not that the DM is not a bad DM, (which would be me simply saying "imagine if I was right, then I'm right, see?")
>>44532628
It is very analogous. A sneak thief bumps into you; even if you are unaware your items have been snatched, you do notice the bump and can take appropriate action if you suspect a theft has taken place, can you not?
The perception roll is to catch her hand on your coin pouch, she's not trying to hide the fact she's bumping into you and running off, despite (adding more information to the scenario) this being a deserted, wide open road with no reason for her to get close to an armed mercenary looking person.
>>44532653
I did not make my argument under your assumption. As such, to you, my argument is wrong because it assumes additional variables that I was unaware of, and thus could not possibly have responded to.
If I were to agree to "The DM made the decision that all perception based die rolls would be rolled by him, and you agreed to this because you trust the GM not to cheat," than I would not be arguing this point, because it would imply that I do not think that it is bad GMing, as I am allowing myself to run under these conditions and agree to them.
>>44532790
>If I were to agree to "The DM made the decision that all perception based die rolls would be rolled by him, and you agreed to this because you trust the GM not to cheat," than I would not be arguing this point, because it would imply that I do not think that it is bad GMing, as I am allowing myself to run under these conditions and agree to them.
But if a GM was doing rolls in secret, without cheating, would that be bad DMing, in your opinion? Even if you don't think there is anyone in the world who wouldn't cheat under these circumstances, is the act of rolling in secret itself inherently bad DMing, if it was not being used to cheat?
>>44532757
Your argument assumes that the perception roll is for the act of thievery itself, rather than the act+getting away. Both of these are reasonable positions, however, I am operating under the idea that the roll is for the entire act. If the check was explicitly just whether or not I caught the actual theft, than yes. I would have reason to believe she stole from me. It depends on what the GM says to me.
>>44532790
Can you see how others might metagame on hearing "roll to see if you see the rogue behind you stealing your gear" at least? And how a GM might alleviate the problem by rolling in secret?
>>44527754
>RPGs abide by a set of rules that everybody operates under equally
You think PCs and NPCs need to operate under the same rules? Who says?
>>44532849
To explain what I'm getting at here more, in neither your initial post nor your first response to me, did you mention anything about cheating
>>44524979
>If she stole anything, I would have had to roll something to catch her, I did not, and thus I don't care.
>If she stole something from me without having the option of catching her, than the GM is a terrible GM, and I also don't care.
>>44526238
>If the GM rolled for me in secret, it is just as bad. I would still not care because I would STILL have a terrible GM.
You just stated that rolling in secret is bad DMing. If rolling in secret is only bad DMing if the DM is using it to cheat, then we are in agreement there, but if you think that rolling in secret is inherently bad DMing even if no cheating is going on, then we disagree. That is the disagreement point that spawned the argument, and it had nothing to do with cheating.
>>44532849
Perhaps "bad gming" is not the right way to put this. Rather, I? believe secret rolling to be bad in general. I simply believe that all rolls should be front and center for all to see. As somebody who is a GM themselves, I always roll in front of my party, and expect that all rolls the party makes should be visible to all as well. I have had my fair share of players who have basically rolled where I could see them, and when I asked them to roll where I could see them, they protested. I assume this is because they were fudging their rolls.
Hiding information from people in a game where all information should be readily available is not just bad GMing, but bad playing. This is because I personally think that all resources should be available to all participants.
>>44532882
I certainly understand that being a worrisome subject. But I personally find it easier to trust somebody not to metagame than I find it to trust somebody to fudge rolls. Fudging rolls is easy, because it is a simple act that is hard to disprove, especially when the dice are out of sight. It is cheating, it is possible to get caught, but it is also possible for it to remain hidden very easily. Metagaming on the other hand, is actually pretty easy to discourage, because the whole party bares witness to them metagaming. The party may discourage their fellow gamer, or the GM can simply call them out on metagaming.
>>44533031
Players and GMs operate under the same rules.
>>44529059
You are a fucking moron, that is all that needs to be said
>>44533115
>where I could see them
Sorry, where I could not see them.
>>44533127
Thank you for your addition to this conversation. Here is your (you).
>You accidentally bump into a nigger. He begins fleeing at once.
Do you chase him ?
>>44533081
I agree that the point of contention is that hiding dice rolls is bad GMing. This is because I see no reason for the GM to hide their rolls. Amusingly, the difference here is that we trust our participants to do or not do different things.
>>44532876
This is the main problem and miscommunication, this and
>If she stole anything, I would have had to roll something to catch her, I did not, and thus I don't care.
>If she stole something from me without having the option of catching her, than the GM is a terrible GM, and I also don't care.
It sounded like you were metagaming that you choose not to chase her simply because no dice were rolled, despite suspicious behaviour.
>>44523660
>>44526296
What this guy said, except it's a crossbow bolt in the vitals.
>>44533420
Generally speaking, I assume thievery to include the act of getting away as well.
Besides that, the quoted text still works under the assumption that I am playing under a system in which I am entitled to an opposed roll.
I would content that I am not metagaming under that text, and in fact, actively trying to avoid metagaming, albeit, via terms that could be construed as metagaming if certain assumptions are made. This is because I would not allow myself, assuming that my actions have to be dictated by rules, to make an action that is not dictated by rules.
>>44533115
>Players and GMs operate under the same rules
Suffice to say I disagree, because I think a double standard between players and GMs results in more fun for both.
>>44533666
>Besides that, the quoted text still works under the assumption that I am playing under a system in which I am entitled to an opposed roll.
If you are entitled to an opposed roll in the open, and you know that, and you didn't get one and nothing was stolen, your character should still not be 100% certain that nothing was stolen only because you didn't get a roll. This is actually the second argument I was trying to have with you, but I think it was getting tangled up in the other one.
>>44523756
dog mentality
>>44533804
I'll add my post here that a Master Thief or Archmage with tons of wards up to detect thievery can be pretty certain that they weren't stolen from, because they have reason to believe that they would notice that happening in game. But most characters probably wouldn't trust their skills in detecting thievery enough to be 100% certain that they weren't stolen from in this circumstance.
>>44533739
I would personally disagree, because if a player makes a character in a certain way, and the GM reveals that the rules work differently because he says so, in sharp contrast to the rules, than that character can be made ineffective as a result due to circumstances that he could not possibly have known.
>>44533804
The character still has to function under the rules, however. In this situation, I would assume the rules are being followed, because I have no reason to suspect otherwise. I am assuming that the GM is playing on an even board. As such, if I were to labor under the assumption that nothing happened, it would be out of character to assume something wrong had happened when I have no rule-evidence that something had. Because under this set of rules, I am entitled an opposed check. Depriving me of this check is effectively cheating, because it is keeping me from information that I should have, and have no way of knowing that I could be deprived of that information.
Basically, I am required to assume that nothing was stolen in character, because my in-character interactions are enabled by dice rolls. If I do not get a dice roll, I would reasonably believe that my character does not need to feel suspicious, because within the set of rules that govern how my character acts: they are not suspicious.
I ask the GM if I'm missing anything. If so, I chase her down. If it's a couple of coins, I know it's the GM's attempt at creating a sympathetic urchin-type character, and I chuck a magically-generated brick of gold at her head out of pity and a desire to better her life.
>>44523660
She triggers my counter when she bumps into me, causing me to pull my weapon from it's sheath and slice her in half.
Followed by me swearing and apologizing profusely, claiming I panicked.
>>44534022
>The character still has to function under the rules, however. In this situation, I would assume the rules are being followed, because I have no reason to suspect otherwise. I am assuming that the GM is playing on an even board. As such, if I were to labor under the assumption that nothing happened, it would be out of character to assume something wrong had happened when I have no rule-evidence that something had. Because under this set of rules, I am entitled an opposed check. Depriving me of this check is effectively cheating, because it is keeping me from information that I should have, and have no way of knowing that I could be deprived of that information.
>Basically, I am required to assume that nothing was stolen in character, because my in-character interactions are enabled by dice rolls. If I do not get a dice roll, I would reasonably believe that my character does not need to feel suspicious, because within the set of rules that govern how my character acts: they are not suspicious.
Your character is not aware of any dice rolls happening, though. So why does the character notice the lack of one?
>>44534022
>Depriving me of this check is effectively cheating, because it is keeping me from information that I should have, and have no way of knowing that I could be deprived of that information.
Also, out of game, yes, you know that nothing was stolen, because there was no roll to notice anything. But your character is not aware that dice rolls happen in game.
>>44534074
It isn't that he notices the lack of one, it is that there is nothing to notice the lack of, as such standard procedure dictates that if it were anything to take note of, there would have been a roll The fact that I did not get a roll means that within the rules, nothing is wrong, and thus I cannot reasonably show in-character suspicion.
>>44534120
I am aware that the character is not aware of the dice rolls. However, the dice still literally dictate that characters actions. The character is not suspicious, because within the system that governs how that characters acts, he just isn't suspicious. That die represents his ability to notice an action is taking place. If he does not have a die roll to enable him to be aware that an action has taken place, the default assumption, within the rules, is that the action did not take place. Lack of die roll implies a lack of action.
>>44534238
The die roll is not for your character being suspicious or not, there are no rules for that. Can your character not be happy unless there are rules for it in the game?
>>44534411
The die roll, as I have stated, represents an action. More specifically, in this case, it represents an action targeting me, which I have the right to respond to. If there is no die roll, it implies that there is no action targeting me.
I can feel emotions without needing a die roll, because emotions, while influenced by external stimuli, do not require external stimuli to occur, nor do they require having been the target of an action to occur. However, I cannot react to an action, that, by the raw terms of the rules, did not occur. Because I am operating under the assumption that a die roll is required for this action, without that die roll, the action simply does not happen. If this action occurs without a die roll, it in not within the purview of the rules. While possible physically, I cannot assume with no justification, that an action is not operating under the rules in a system that requires the rules to be followed.
>>44534569
How is your character aware that there was no action targeting him if he isn't aware of dice rolls and doesn't know that one didn't take place in this suspicious event? The character would need to be aware that there was no dice roll in order to not be suspicious. The game does not assume that the abstractions of the mechanics are how the characters actually see the world, so your character can't know for certain without checking that nothing was stolen from them when there wasn't a roll.
>>44534772
Because the results of a die roll create a set of circumstances. No die roll means that these circumstances have not been created. Thus the circumstance in which I am suspicious/chasing, etc. cannot occur, because there is nothing to create that situation. They are not aware that the dice roll has occurred, but they are still directly influenced by the result of a die roll, and also cannot be influenced by a third party without a dice roll.
>>44534933
>Because the results of a die roll create a set of circumstances. No die roll means that these circumstances have not been created. Thus the circumstance in which I am suspicious/chasing, etc. cannot occur, because there is nothing to create that situation. They are not aware that the dice roll has occurred, but they are still directly influenced by the result of a die roll, and also cannot be influenced by a third party without a dice roll.
Being bumped into by someone in a dark cloak who then runs away at full speed creates the suspicion. The character actually did get bumped into, that happened and also the bumper running away at full speed also happened. These are what make the character suspicious. The non-existence of a die roll for pickpocketing does not make the bumping and subsequent running away at full speed not suspicious.
>>44535135
It may be suspicious, but the lack of roll conclusively means that within the rules nothing was stolen. Regardless of whether or not anything was stolen, the fact that there was no die roll means that circumstances in which your items are missing objectively cannot happen assuming all parties are obeying the rules.
Be suspicious all you want, however, nothing happened because there was no action to happen. Assuming something happened when objectively speaking, nothing happened. Acting on an event that didn't happen because you, out of character, believe something happened, is metagaming. Within the rules of the system however, the character does not believe anything happened. They could only possibly believe something had happened if they not only got a die roll, but succeeded in it. You are proposing that effectively they notice an action happening because they failed the die roll. Which is effectively using out of character knowledge to affect the situation.
To assume that anything happened, your character has to use out of character knowledge to assume that the GM isn't playing by the rules.
>>44535387
>To assume that anything happened, your character has to use out of character knowledge to assume that the GM isn't playing by the rules.
No, you should still deal with your character's suspicion in game, but since you know that nothing was stolen you can narratively deal with this pretty simply if you want to, "my character checks his stuff and finding nothing missing, continues with his business" if you don't want to follow up on why you got bumped into, or whatever else your character wants to do. I will reiterate, the things that happened, that required no rolls to happen, namely being bumped into and that person running away really fast, are suspicious. This has exactly no detrimental effect on your character, and you know that only because their was no die roll, but since your character isn't aware of the lack of dice rolls, you as a player need to address that suspicion, unless the character is naive and doesn't know the old pickpocket bump or is skilled in detecting such things and is confident that even a failed pick pocketing attempt would be noticed by the character. I will admit that this is a very minor case of metagaming, but your character's suspicions being dismissed due to out of game reasoning when you could have it be dismissed by a swift in character action is still a minor instance of metagaming.
>>44535654
>even a failed pick pocketing attempt would be noticed by the character.
and I will add here, "let alone a successful one"
>>44535654
I would say that being that I would have to check myself after having no reason to do so is part of the problem. Because how am I ever supposed to trust the GM to play by the rules?
>>44535688
>even a failed pick pocketing attempt would be noticed by the character
I would say that a failed pickpocket attempt would especially be noticed by a player. However, a successful pickpocket is undetectable. The problem here is that we are once again, both assuming different things. I assume that a successful pickpocket attempt implies that they remain uncaught until it is noticed the items are missing. You on the other hand, assume that a successful pickpocket attempt only implies that they manage to get their hands into the characters pocket and out with the item, stealth be damned.
Under my assumption, I would be correct, because assuming that this character had successfully pickpocketed me, I would have no way of knowing, because part of that hidden check also implies that they got away successfully. To say otherwise would be to ignore the result of the roll, whether or not I know that it occurred.
Under what I believe your assumption to be, you would be correct, because the get-away is not included in the successful pickpocket attempt. Thus the character can be reasonably be suspicious and give chase.
>>44535387
Jesus fucking Christ dude, you just argued that your character knows nothing happened because the player knows nothing happened because no dice are rolled, and that that's somehow not metagaming. How, pray tell, does the character know no dice were rolled? Is he aware he's a character in a game?
I also take issue with your "They could only possibly believe something had happened if they not only got a die roll, but succeeded in it." It's entirely possible that the woman never had any intention of stealing, and made no attempt to do so. Perhaps she was paid to make a scene to distract your character, and your DM didn't want to detract from a RP scene with needless dice rolls. You might know nothing was stolen, but your character would only know if she actually stole something and he passed the check. There's nothing stopping him from being suspicious of her actions and acting on that suspicion, even with a failed or absent roll.
>>44523660
>Hold Person
I'm a cleric, where is she going in a hurry like that?
>Use zone of truth and question her about her odd behavior and if she needs help
>>44535930
>I would say that being that I would have to check myself after having no reason to do so is part of the problem. Because how am I ever supposed to trust the GM to play by the rules?
You don't need to check, the character does. I said this already but, "My character checks his belongings and finds that nothing is missing, before continuing with his business"
>>44535930
>You on the other hand, assume that a successful pickpocket attempt only implies that they manage to get their hands into the characters pocket and out with the item, stealth be damned.
No I am not, a pickpocketing attempt taking place at all is not even in my argument at all, in any way, failed or successful. That was a corollary about a character skilled enough in detecting thievery that they trust that they would have detected any pick pocketing if it was even attempted.
>>44536052
But I have no reason to check, because nothing happened. I can check, sure. But it is pointless to do so. In order to check, I would have to have a suspicion that something was missing, in order for my character to assume something was missing, I would have had to succeed in a check. The fact that the pickpocket succeeded in this hidden roll means that I cannot possibly know anything happened, and thus have no reason to check for an item that the dice have decided have been removed from my person without me noticing.
We give dice to the young players so they have something to do with their hands other than masturbate, but the GM decides everything regardless of your rolls.
>>44536169
Again, no hidden roll was made, all rolls are in the open in this scenario. But more importantly, this
>>44536169
>But I have no reason to check, because nothing happened. I can check, sure. But it is pointless to do so. In order to check, I would have to have a suspicion that something was missing,
is all from your point of view, not the characters, and this
>>44536169
>in order for my character to assume something was missing, I would have had to succeed in a check.
Ignores that two suspicious actions that required NO dice rolls at all took place. Basically, if two men followed your character down a dead end alleyway standing abreast so that they take up most of the alleyway, your argument would mean that your character can't be suspicious of these men's intentions, since no mechanical action requiring a diceroll has taken place for your character to be suspicious of.
>>44536332
If the roll is not hidden, than assuming the thief succeeded, I could not be suspicious of them, because I know I did not see it. Rather than just assuming I know nothing happened to me, my character definitively knows nothing happened, because they failed the check that allows them to know something happened. In this case, I would be metagaming because I'm ignoring the result of the dice.
My character doesn't know anything happened, because the thief rolled successfully.
Different situations. In order for these to be equivalent situations, I would have to be aware of the thief's suspicious nature before she rolls against me, and can take preventative measures. Alternatively, the suspicious looking men would have to ambush me.
>>44536489
>If the roll is not hidden, than assuming the thief succeeded,
There was no pic pocketing attempt
>>44536052
>No I am not, a pickpocketing attempt taking place at all is not even in my argument at all, in any way, failed or successful.
>>44536568
A successful pickpocket attempt results in a situation in which the victim is not aware they have been burgled. We can call this the default state, because they are none the wiser, and assume nothing has been stolen.
Likewise, a situation in which a character has not been burgled also results in the default state. This is because they have no reason to be suspicious that any of their possessions are missing.
Therefore, regardless of whether or not the pickpocketing was a success or if there was no burglary to begin with, they both result in the same state, because a successful pickpocket attempt results in the same situation as a lack of a pickpocket attempt.
>>44536729
The problem with that is that very obviously bumping into someone is a pick pocketing trick that can be identified even if you can't identify the pick pocketing yourself. And this is common knowledge, such that a character wouldn't even need to roll to know this, because it's something a character only wouldn't know if the player decided they wouldn't at character creation. You compound that with the person running away immediately and no roll or even pick pocketing attempt is necessary for those actions to be suspicious. As I have stated many times before, no pick pocketing attempt and a successful one look exactly the same to the character in this circumstance, and the character is likely to know that this is a common pick pocketing technique.
>>44536945
That is using theoretical character knowledge that you cannot say for certain that every character has, you might even say that it requires a roll to know, perhaps one with a very low DC, but a roll nonetheless, or even simply based on stats.
One time I was running a campaign, and there was a situation where the air hung with much suspended particulate matter. One of my players immediately chimed in, in character that they should be careful not to make any sparks, because they might cause a dust explosion. Now, his character had a low intelligence score, somewhere around a 5 or 6. Could I be reasonably sure that his character would know what a dust explosion is? Probably not. The point is, that it is using out of character knowledge and assuming because he thought it was commonly available information, that the character would know it to, despite the fact that his character might or might not reasonably know what such a thing is.
This is the same situation, it is assuming the character has knowledge based on what we, the players know. The character could have been a hermit who seldom had social interactions, or it could have been a streetwise minstrel. Both of these characters have different levels of knowledge on the subject, and one of them could be reasonably not-suspicious upon somebody bumping into them.
We also don't know whether or not the woman was running before she bumped into the character. Perhaps she was running and the bump occurred, and then she continued running.
Any way we look at it here, there is information that we don't have readily available, because the encounter as we know it starts with the bump, and we don't know enough about the player character in question to be able to say whether or not they know about the situation, and whether or not it is suspicious. Thus the default position is assumed. That situation being that they aren't immediately suspicious that they have been burgled.
>>44537276
>That is using theoretical character knowledge that you cannot say for certain that every character has, you might even say that it requires a roll to know, perhaps one with a very low DC, but a roll nonetheless, or even simply based on stats.
>>44537276
>we don't know enough about the player character in question to be able to say whether or not they know about the situation, and whether or not it is suspicious. Thus the default position is assumed. That situation being that they aren't immediately suspicious that they have been burgled.
You agree with me that the character is likely to know this, therefor the default position should be that the character does, if that is a sticking point, you could mention it as a corollary as I have done on many occasions, while still agreeing that the conclusion still works in general. That conclusion being that most characters would think that it was possible that they have been pick pocketed, even though the player knows that the character wasn't, because the character has in character reason to suspect a pick pocket, but has yet to take action to verify it. I have stated on multiple occasions that, yes, it is possible the character is naive and doesn't know this common pick pocket trick, but in general the conclusion stands, barring the aforementioned corollary, which I did.
dude meta subversion lmao
>>44537415
I'm honestly pretty lost at this point. So I'm just gonna say you win. Still, it has been fun arguing with you.
I still maintain that hiding rolls from the players isn't good GMing though.
>>44537643
>I'm honestly pretty lost at this point. So I'm just gonna say you win. Still, it has been fun arguing with you.
We'll call it a draw, and same.
>>44537643
>I still maintain that hiding rolls from the players isn't good GMing though.
And I'll let this slide.
It's 2:18 where I live, so I'll say goodnight to you now, anon.
>>44537724
Fair enough, it is the same time here as well.
>>44537643
>>44537724
What the fuck?
Am I really on 4chan right now?
Ive been watching this argument unfold for literal hours and it just ended peacefully with one person admitting they lost.
>>44537845
Hey, man, I want it to be a draw, if you wanna contest that, we can have a nice, orderly discussion, but I'm pretty tired right now so I might have to take a rain check on that.
And being slightly more serious, it's rare, but yes, you can have peaceful resolutions to arguments on 4chan, as long as it's on /tg/. I know this because it's not my first peacefully resolved argument here, and a lot of the process is both parties getting past the "4chan insult arguing" phase through sheer stubbornness, but not being too stubborn to actually listen to the other person.
Is this a "what does last character do" sort of thing, OP?
