D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[Maxperson]

That's still not what metagaming means, and it still isn't relevant what the player knows, just whether the character could do what the character did or if it was impossible (and if it was impossible, that's still not metagaming - it's cheating).

There is a definition of metagaming provided in the book - it's thinking of the game as a game, and the examples provided are nothing at all like scenario described here.

You are getting caught up in the typical pitfall of worrying about metagaming - getting distracted by your knowledge of what the player knows, and missing that the knowledge is irrelevant (or, at least in my opinion, should be irrelevant) because the declared action for the character would be totally fine if the player didn't know.

And that is forcing the thing you claim to be trying to avoid - the player's knowledge, rather than the character's, determining the character's course of action - to happen.

The definition provided in the book is incorrect. Metagaming has specific meaning over decades. That meaning doesn't vanish because someone at Wizards got it wrong.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The definition provided in the book is incorrect. Metagaming has specific meaning over decades. That meaning doesn't vanish because someone at Wizards got it wrong.

Funny, I'd argue that a word with a rather precise and etymologically obvious meaning doesn't change just because a handful of anonymous internet zealots insist on using it incorrectly* in order to advance an agenda. Especially when that new, incorrect meaning is so poorly defined that nobody can agree to what exactly it does and does not include.

*c.f. definition of "moot". Or, more recently, "truth".

 

[Guest 6801328]

Like [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION], you appear to be making a judgment on the validity of that style of play. Others, like [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] are just fine with pvp. (I'm not, as I have stated.) The DM was at least being honest to the OP when he stated that there's not much he can do about it. Perhaps that's just how they D&D. Now it's on the OP to work it out with the other players.

Whoah...where did that come from? Did you quote the wrong post, maybe? Or just read something into it that wasn't there?

I'm observing that there are conflicts at the table resulting from, it would appear, differences in preferred style of play, and the DM has the ability to help resolve that.

 

[iserith]

Whoah...where did that come from? Did you quote the wrong post, maybe? Or just read something into it that wasn't there?

I'm observing that there are conflicts at the table resulting from, it would appear, differences in preferred style of play, and the DM has the ability to help resolve that.

Your post implies that the conflicts in the game are necessarily bad such that the DM should be using tools to mitigate it. (It is possible you didn't mean to imply it or I misread you.) Some people like those sorts of conflicts in their games. Clearly, the OP does not and so in my view should seek redress of his grievances with the other players who are the source of that conflict. Again, the DM does have the ability to help, being another player of the game, but not the responsibility to resolve the conflict.

I'm in a couple of games right now that I just joined where some player behaviors are annoying to me. Will I go to the DM about this? No - because the people that are annoying are not the DM. I will observe the situation and see if it continues, then either go to those players to resolve it if I think I can get satisfaction or I will leave the game. I have no expectation of the DMs of those games that they should be the ones to step in and deal with it.

 

[Caliban]

Funny, I'd argue that a word with a rather precise and etymologically obvious meaning doesn't change just because a handful of anonymous internet zealots insist on using it incorrectly* in order to advance an agenda. Especially when that new, incorrect meaning is so poorly defined that nobody can agree to what exactly it does and does not include.

*c.f. definition of "moot". Or, more recently, "truth".

Language evolves. Metagaming in this context, among most RPG gamers I've met, has generally come to mean "using out of game knowledge to make in-game decisions" in the broadest definition. That is my understanding of it, and most people on this forum (other than Aaron) seem to immediately understand it that way as well.

In reference to players, it may be more narrowly defined as "Using player knowledge that the character doesn't/shouldn't have to inform their character's actions or decisions".

In reference to a DM, it can mean "having NPC's act on knowledge that they shouldn't have, or changing things in the game based on PC actions despite there being no causal link between them."

It has a different meaning in other contexts (such as when discussing games like Dota or League of Legends).

WOTC redefining it in their book is all well and good, but not really relevant to how it is actually used. Being "technically correct" isn't always the best kind of correct. Sometimes it just means you're being annoying.

 

[Aldarc]

Language evolves. Metagaming in this context, among most RPG gamers I've met, has generally come to mean "using out of game knowledge to make in-game decisions" in the broadest definition. That is my understanding of it, and most people on this forum (other than Aaron) seem to immediately understand it that way as well.

In reference to players, it may be more narrowly defined as "Using player knowledge that the character doesn't/shouldn't have to inform their character's actions or decisions".

In reference to a DM, it can mean "having NPC's act on knowledge that they shouldn't have, or changing things in the game based on PC actions despite there being no causal link between them."

It has a different meaning in other contexts (such as when discussing games like Dota or League of Legends).

WOTC redefining it in their book is all well and good, but not really relevant to how it is actually used. Being "technically correct" isn't always the best kind of correct. Sometimes it just means you're being annoying.

Language does indeed evolve which is also why one equally can't say that metagaming has one specific meaning over decades. That's just implausible. And based upon the fierce debates this forum has had over the metagaming, including whether it's possible for the GM to metagame, it's difficult not to get the impression that what "most people on this forum" think constitutes as metagaming is pretty open-ended. (I'm equally reminded about internet discussions regarding what constitutes a "Mary/Gary Stu" character. Ask twenty different people, and I'll likely get twenty wildly different answers.)

 

[SilentRave]

Actually 1 on 1 conversations happen in front of all the players and that's a downside because everyone, except me and another guy, constantly try to act upon knowledge of such conversations.

 

[Caliban]

Language does indeed evolve which is also why one equally can't say that metagaming has one specific meaning over decades.

Good thing I didn't say that then. I'm pretty sure I provided three different definitions for metagaming based on context and outright stated that it means something else in different contexts.

The only person insisting on a single, specific, technical definition for metagaming is Aaron.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Language evolves.

This is true. It is also why WotC's definition is actually useful - it's an evolution of a word that used to mean practically nothing, because it would do no more than scare people into worrying about doing a particular thing that the outcome ended up nearly almost always being that they would do that very thing (base what actions a character can take on the player's knowledge, rather than the character's) in their attempts to avoid it.

Which is what happens every time someone labels an action as metagaming that didn't actually require the knowledge the player had in order for the character to make.

It becomes policing the player's thoughts, rather than making sure the character isn't doing things they couldn't.

But WotC's new definition? It's actually clear and easy to use, and doesn't result in situations like my favorite go-to example of why the old definition of metagaming is useless to the point of the word being meaningless - the brand new player with no knowledge at all about the game can attack a monster with a flaming log because it attacked while they were tending the fire at camp and no one bats an eye, but an experienced and knowledgeable player is "metagaming" if they do so because the DM knows the player knows what a troll is and/or that this monster is a troll rather than something else.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Your post implies that the conflicts in the game are necessarily bad such that the DM should be using tools to mitigate it.

I think from the frustration expressed by the OP it's obvious that something isn't working. Maybe all it would take is for the DM to explain "this is how we roll" but something went sideways with that table.

(It is possible you didn't mean to imply it or I misread you.) Some people like those sorts of conflicts in their games. Clearly, the OP does not and so in my view should seek redress of his grievances with the other players who are the source of that conflict. Again, the DM does have the ability to help, being another player of the game, but not the responsibility to resolve the conflict.

I'm in a couple of games right now that I just joined where some player behaviors are annoying to me. Will I go to the DM about this? No - because the people that are annoying are not the DM. I will observe the situation and see if it continues, then either go to those players to resolve it if I think I can get satisfaction or I will leave the game. I have no expectation of the DMs of those games that they should be the ones to step in and deal with it.

Ok. I think I (and others here, apparently) have a perception that in general the DM is "first among equals" and bears additional responsibility to set the tone and address conflicts. But that wouldn't be the case at every table. I would always go to the DM first and ask, "Hey, I have this issue with other players...which one of us doesn't understand the game you're running?" Once I had some clarity on that I would decide what to do next.