Hmmm, I wasn't aware people cared about the Roleplaying stuff; I figured they'd do DND or RPG's for something like that. I've always viewed this as pure strategy game, like chess or risk. I definitely remember in Free for all's in Risk there being a sense of "Soandso is winning! Gang up on him!"
Though I guess that's real life friends, as opposed to a gaming community.
Quote:
|
Done privately, my issue is that metagaming too much can look very similiar to more serious cheating, such as illegal teaming in a non team game.
|
I feel like that's a different issue; in a non-team game, illegal information sharing is a big deal, which is why I discluded it. In a teams-are-fine game, information sharing privately is no big deal; I'm looking for the salient difference between public/private. I guess it could be the Roleplaying stuff, in which case I might start tagging the games I run as [insincere]
Regarding AI's: Generally I think in terms of the strategy game it's better to have physical players, since they're more challenging and saavy opponents (with relatively few exceptions). But if someone felt compelled to go AI while losing, I wouldn't be that upset, and certainly wouldn't seek some sort of roleplayed reason...I've got lots of good options for my roleplaying games, and sadly few options for my in depth complex strategy games.
Re: Metagaming: Public, Private, or not at all?
Hybrid Mode
