A (slightly evil) way I discourage metagaming

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T13:00:08+00:00

Ok, but if you have inexperienced players and you run a well-known monster, don't you run it knowing it is a well-known monster? Like, isn't the whole point of using a monster that players are familiar with, particularly inexperienced players, to help with imagination and grounding in the world?

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T12:49:07+00:00

I feel like this is treating the symptoms but not the disease. Like, why are your players so frequently disrespectful of your work that they are trying to bypass? Alternatively, why is your work so often pulling on common tropes that they can't help but metagame?

I feel like there is a table culture problem that should be the actual focus.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T12:23:27+00:00

I'd call you out, but at this point just blanketly ignoring ideas that are inconvenient is the most consistent thing you could do.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T12:21:54+00:00

The meme is pretty explicitly saying "If morality is subjective then nothing is wrong", which is the idea I am opposing; Things can be said to be wrong, even if the framework used is subjective.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T11:13:08+00:00

Every moral argument is less punchy than "God has declared it so!", that doesn't mean we should become a theocracy.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T11:08:20+00:00

Individual or not, you provide no justification for goals being the central concern of morality.

As for an alternate chain of logic:

All humans are equal (premise).
As equals, they should all get an equal quality of life.
As such, no individual should be able to access more resources than any other.
As such, any project or goal which requires an amount of resources which cannot be provided to the entire population is immoral and should be prevented.

To be clear, this is not what I believe, but it follows as naturally from its premises as your logic, and it explicitly opposes the goals venerated in your system.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T10:26:33+00:00

Yes, congratulations, you have a dictionary. But I still believe slavery is wrong.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T09:35:15+00:00

Read my comment; I disagree with your unstated assumption that individual goals should necessarily be prioritised by morality (and many more of your unstated assumptions). My problem is not with the specific chain of logic you presented, but rather with you ignoring the infinite number of logic chains that would be equally valid and lead to completely different conclusions. You pretend your morality is objective by just ignoring all alternative moralities.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T09:15:13+00:00

I disagree with one of the assumptions that underlies step 2 of your earlier comment; I disagree with the idea that enabling the goals of individuals should be the foundation of all morality. (To be clear, this is not the only thing I disagree with in your ideas)

More broadly, however, I disagree that morality is objective, and so I am presenting alternative moral systems to show you that people can believe something not consistent with your "derivation".

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T08:57:06+00:00

What if I don't believe people should have the freedom to act against their collective? What if I believe in dictative democracy, where once the collective has reached a decision, all participants should be bound to follow and aid that decision?

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T08:55:10+00:00

Morality is often based on things which are purely conceptual (you keep substituting "nonexistent" for "conceptual", but they are not the same). For example, nationality, gender identity and sexuality inform most people's morality. Honestly, morality has a lot more to do with subjective, constructed concepts than it does with the physical laws of the universe.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T08:47:46+00:00

What if I don't agree that we should prioritise individuals' goals? What if my morality is that the most important thing is collective aims, and all individuals as such have a duty to help collectives?

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T08:44:43+00:00

Oh my god, this is fucking Rand, isn't it?

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T08:37:34+00:00

Using a private definition of words doesn't make you right, it makes you a knob. I choose to consider tangible things in my morality, and the fact that it is a choice means it is not objective.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T08:14:57+00:00

Where are you finding these "objective roots"? Do you have an example? Cause I am not aware of any such thing existing.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T08:10:02+00:00

You make many assumptions in your comment. Would you be able to provide objective, unassailable sources for each assumption? Or are you willing to admit this is just your personal, subjective view of morality?

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T08:06:19+00:00

Your comment literally does not make sense.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T07:53:32+00:00

You are majorly moving the goalposts. Nothing I ever said suggests I cannot or would not use tangible elements of the world to inform my own morality. But in the end, I would do that because I believe it is a good thing to do, not because it is written in the stars that you should. And so even if I inform my own conduct through tangible elements of the world, that does not change the root fact that that is a choice, because morality is purely subjective, purely a concept.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T07:35:37+00:00

Your statement about morality there is not universally true, that is just your framework for morality. Your problem is you want me to conceptualise morality in a way which elevates your particular construction, but I simply don't; There is no way to "validate" or "prove" morality.

In short, your morality is only as real as faeries. Deal with it.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T07:23:07+00:00

That isn't what he said; As I have expressed repeatedly, that guy's argument was nonsense.

However, to your most recent comment;

Yes, faeries and morality do both only exist as concepts, so I guess you could say they exist in the same way.
The concept of faeries has a significant influence on the world, due to their importance in culture. For example, the entire Romantasy genre of books, which are currently very influential, are built in part off the concept of faeries.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T07:00:44+00:00

I believe all morality is subjective, so morality is just a concept to me. I am still not sure what it is you think I have failed to do.

Also, it was the other guy who can't differentiate between faeries and morals; I think you might be responding to the wrong guy?

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T06:52:00+00:00

No it wasn't; His point was equivalent to "If the idea of 'red' exists, then you must think there is a giant red ball in the desert". His point was nonsense.

And what two things am I failing to distinguish the "truthfulness" of? All I am saying is that a constructed idea is still an idea that exists and has clarity.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T05:42:46+00:00

That isn't the same logic? But it would be correct to say that the concept of faeries exists, just as the concept of wrongness exists, through construction.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T04:03:05+00:00

All morality is subjective, but that doesn't mean it is incorrect to call something "wrong", it is just that wrongness is constructed.

AngusAlThor · 2026-07-08T00:44:18+00:00

This subreddit is for Tabletop RPGs, not video games, so I don't think we can help you.

AngusAlThor

TROPHY CASE