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

[Lanefan]

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.

Then change that. If you're in a 1-on-1 situation, pull the DM aside...or write a note...to keep what should be private, private.

Lanefan

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, it bugged me for about a year after some political science courses in undergrad. Felt nice to be annoyed at the parochial ignorance of most of my fellow Americans. Then I grew up, realized that is just what the word commonly means in wider American society, and it recognized as a definition in American dictionaries. Now I just get irked about those darn liberals trying to raise my taxes. ;-)

That's...an interesting confession. But I suppose that's typical for undergrads. Or graduate students, even.

I just think it's too bad that there isn't a word left to describe what "liberal" used to mean. The lack thereof suggests that it isn't a concept that is generally useful, and it should be. (Also curious that "illiberal" still has the original meaning, and hasn't morphed to mean "conservative".)

"Hack/er/ing" is another good example. How do you refer to what it represents without people thinking that you mean criminal activity?

And now back to our regularly scheduled thread....

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Which, if we are to follow your line of thinking, means we need some new terms for specific elements of what used to fall under metagaming.

[term 1] = when a character takes actions based on knowledge it could not have (e.g. scout goes out, DM tells table what is found, but scout dies before reporting in; characters act as if scout reported in anyway. The troll-vs.-fire example fits in here also)
[term 2] = when a player takes actions based on knowledge s/he should not have (e.g. overhears DM telling a friend some plot info, then uses that info in game. Or the player knows what a monster is but the character does not, the troll example again)
[term 3] = when a character takes action based on mechanical dice odds rather than the in-game situation

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

Yep. Which is kind of the point - is the player using player info or character info and can (and will) he keep them separate.

Lanefan

 

[Uchawi]

Talk to the DM first to determine how your play effects the table. You may have to change some of your habits that may irk other players, but the DM overall controls the tone of the game. If you keep the DM happy and are willing to make some small changes, the you have the best advocate at the table to influence other players. This stuff happens all the time as each player trys to control the spot light. Sometimes it can be as simple as choosing classes like a rogue that may not work well with a group centric party.

 

[Lanefan]

My perception is there is a minority of people most likely to get bent out of shape over "using knowledge the character wouldn't have"

My perception is that it's far from a minority who feel this way...except when playing convention or tournament games where time is of the essence and knowledge is just assumed.

Lanefan

 

[BookBarbarian]

To the OP. You're in a tough scenario with a lot of newbie players (is your DM a newbie too?). When I started out as a DM I had a sit down with my players before our first session and discussed our expectations of the game. I made it clear that I didn't like PVP or really any messing around between players like stealing, intimidating, persuading etc. It's just not fun for me. I play D&D to have a Heroic Fantasy game. I also make sure to talk about one specific thing. If at any time, for any reason a player is not having fun, they can (and should) bring it up to the table and we will discuss it.

I got the idea for this Sessions Zero from these very forums, and my enjoyment of the game has increased since we had that talk.

It's never too late to have that conversation, and one doesn't have to be the DM to bring it up.

Good luck. I hope you get it sorted out.

 

[Aldarc]

Then you should have been quoting his post instead of mine in your reply. Since you included my entire post before your reply, it makes it look like you are in fact replying directly to me.

If you then include replies to other posters without any attribution it is just confusing, and makes it look like you are putting words in my mouth.

You call it being defensive, I call it clarifying the issue.

There was a web-and-flow of conversation taking place, and I was using a point on your post as a jumping-off-point. Don't worry about it, and move on with your life instead of blaming others.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Going to address this out of order to better prioritize my thoughts on the matter:

Yep. Which is kind of the point - is the player using player info or character info and can (and will) he keep them separate.

If the player info and character info are kept truly separate, then knowing what the player knows is never relevant. All that is relevant is whether the action the character is taking is one that the character could choose to do with the knowledge that the character has.

If a player can't have their character do [insert in-character action] and the reason why they can't do that is because the player knows [insert piece of information], that is forcing the character's actions to be determined by the player's knowledge - not separating the two.

So no, policing the player's thoughts isn't "kind of the point" according to any definition of metagaming that I've ever seen anyone use - it's the unintended and counter-productive result.

Which, if we are to follow your line of thinking, means we need some new terms for specific elements of what used to fall under metagaming.

There are actually already terms for the things which fall under the outdated definition of metagaming.

[term 1] = when a character takes actions based on knowledge it could not have (e.g. scout goes out, DM tells table what is found, but scout dies before reporting in; characters act as if scout reported in anyway. The troll-vs.-fire example fits in here also)

Firstly, the troll and fire example has nothing to do with this: one does not need to know anything other than that fire is available, fire is a dangerous and destructive thing, and they are under attack in order to choose to use fire as a weapon against their attacker.

Secondly, a character performing actions that it absolutely could not possibly have a reason for doing is called "cheating" or "not playing in good faith."

[term 2] = when a player takes actions based on knowledge s/he should not have (e.g. overhears DM telling a friend some plot info, then uses that info in game. Or the player knows what a monster is but the character does not, the troll example again)

First, is not relevant in my troll example whether the player knows their character faces a troll, and that trolls are especially susceptible to fire. The character could attack with a burning log if the monster were an ogre, and especially large gnome, a cleverly disguised fire elemental, or even the avatar of the principal of logic.

The majority of these actions that get called "metagaming" are actually one of two things: A) completely acceptable play that has triggered a false positive in someone's metagaming sensor (this sort being the things that an experienced and knowledgeable player gets harangued for while a completely unknowledgeable and inexperienced player doing the same would not cause a response), or B) cheating or not playing the game in good faith.

[term 3] = when a character takes action based on mechanical dice odds rather than the in-game situation

If you mean making a choice to use the greatsword a few feet away from the character because it does 2d6 damage instead of using the flaming log in the character's hand because that would only do improvised weapon damage plus 1 point of fire, then you have hit the nail on a thing which is actually metagaming. The character would regard both a greatsword and a flaming log as dangerous and potentially lethal weapons, because which one does "more damage" wouldn't actually be clear beyond "a bad run-in with either will kill you."

Or when a player of mine insisted that he couldn't possibly escape with the rest of his party because he's a dwarf, so he "had to" turn and fight the overwhelming odds that the party had initially planned to flee from. He was thinking of the movement speed listed on his character sheet, not the in-world reality that sometimes people do actually retreat and get away even if they are dwarves.

I don't know what else you could have been meaning by that, so let me know if my examples aren't the kind of thing you meant.

 

[Caliban]

There was a web-and-flow of conversation taking place, and I was using a point on your post as a jumping-off-point. Don't worry about it, and move on with your life instead of blaming others.

Don't be so defensive.

 

[Lanefan]

Going to address this out of order to better prioritize my thoughts on the matter:
If the player info and character info are kept truly separate, then knowing what the player knows is never relevant. All that is relevant is whether the action the character is taking is one that the character could choose to do with the knowledge that the character has.

And consistent with what the character has been known to do in other situations, yes.

If a player can't have their character do [insert in-character action] and the reason why they can't do that is because the player knows [insert piece of information], that is forcing the character's actions to be determined by the player's knowledge - not separating the two.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Try this one: Dungeon crawl in the mountains, no lakes or rivers nearby, pparty has stopped while the Thief scouts ahead. DM tells everyone* what happens to the Thief - far enough away from the party that nobody could notice (or all such rolls fail) the Thief triggers a trap that drops him into deep water, and he drowns. Ten minutes later and long past due, all the characters know is that the Thief hasn't returned; yet the players know why. If the party decide to cautiously scout ahead and look for the Thief, going slow and searching or poling for traps or hazards makes sense. I rather think everyone's on board with me so far.

But if someone says "The Thief fell into water, so I'm casting Water Breathing on myself"? That's gone beyond the pale; the player has used player-only knowledge to determine what his character does.

* - this is mistake #1; the DM-Thief interaction really should have all been by note, or out of the room.

There are actually already terms for the things which fall under the outdated definition of metagaming.

Firstly, the troll and fire example has nothing to do with this: one does not need to know anything other than that fire is available, fire is a dangerous and destructive thing, and they are under attack in order to choose to use fire as a weapon against their attacker.

True enough. But if every other time said character has needed a dangerous and destructive thing in hand she's reached for her longsword it fails the smell test if just this one time she happens to pull out a torch...

Secondly, a character performing actions that it absolutely could not possibly have a reason for doing is called "cheating" or "not playing in good faith."

Agreed, but for some reason "cheating" as a term has always been assigned to outright fraud e.g. rolling a '6' and saying it's a '19', or using loaded dice, while more subtle things - for which "playing in bad faith" is a decently functional term - such as the above have been lumped in with "metagaming".

The majority of these actions that get called "metagaming" are actually one of two things: A) completely acceptable play that has triggered a false positive in someone's metagaming sensor (this sort being the things that an experienced and knowledgeable player gets harangued for while a completely unknowledgeable and inexperienced player doing the same would not cause a response), or B) cheating or not playing the game in good faith.

Mostly true, yes; with the difference being I largely don't mind using the same term for all of them except outright fraud-cheating as noted above.

If you mean making a choice to use the greatsword a few feet away from the character because it does 2d6 damage instead of using the flaming log in the character's hand because that would only do improvised weapon damage plus 1 point of fire, then you have hit the nail on a thing which is actually metagaming. The character would regard both a greatsword and a flaming log as dangerous and potentially lethal weapons, because which one does "more damage" wouldn't actually be clear beyond "a bad run-in with either will kill you."

Or when a player of mine insisted that he couldn't possibly escape with the rest of his party because he's a dwarf, so he "had to" turn and fight the overwhelming odds that the party had initially planned to flee from. He was thinking of the movement speed listed on his character sheet, not the in-world reality that sometimes people do actually retreat and get away even if they are dwarves.

I don't know what else you could have been meaning by that, so let me know if my examples aren't the kind of thing you meant.

These are good enough. The Dwarf one, though, could quickly be reflected in the game after about 20 feet worth of running (or if the Dwarf has ever had to try and keep up with the rest of 'em before); he knows he's the slowest in the group and might or might not know whether the foe can outrun him. He has a decision to make on the spot and makes it. I'd actually give this one a pass.

The greatsword/log one, however, is more interesting. The sword clearly hurts more when it connects with a foe; and if the character's ever used one (or is any kind of Warrior class and thus would reasonably have had training in such things) this would probably be a known thing thus reaching for the greatsword makes sense...unless that reach incurs significant risk (provoke an AOO?) in which case the log might be the better option. But a non-Warrior or a raw 1st-level type? Then yes, we're into metagame territory.