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

[Maxperson]

An example you've given is that a player has played through a given adventure before. If that player applies previously learned knowledge to the current gane, it is 9nlu because he's treating the game as a game. Ergo, definition is broad enough to cover this.

You're interpretation is just that, an interpretation. As the words are vague, it's even a good one. But so is Max's. That paragraph on metagaming is vague enough that it supports both of your views.

It's really so overly broad and vague that it's useless.

 

[Corwin]

Er, no. Go back and re-read. At least not by my definition. The overly broad one put forth by WotC would qualify it as metagaming.

You mean this one?:

"Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game.", period... Player knowledge that PCs don't have is something that actually exists in the metagame.

Pretty clear, yeah. If a player ever uses the words "armor class", or "hit points", or tells you the result of a d20 check, they are a cheating metagamer. Or would you prefer to reconsider your interpretation of the definition at this time?

 

[Corwin]

Okay. So I was wrong about 5e.

Do I have you permission to put this in my signature?

 

[Maxperson]

You mean this one?:

Pretty clear, yeah. If a player ever uses the words "armor class", or "hit points", or tells you the result of a d20 check, they are a cheating metagamer. Or would you prefer to reconsider your interpretation of the definition at this time?

No. Try again.

 

[Corwin]

No. Try again.

Yes it is. Clearly, I just quoted you saying it. Are you saying I made up your quote? Not cool, man.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes it is. Clearly, I just quoted you saying it. Are you saying I made up your quote? Not cool, man.

That wasn't my answer to the question you posted, though. Keep trying.

 

[iserith]

An example you've given is that a player has played through a given adventure before. If that player applies previously learned knowledge to the current gane, it is 9nlu because he's treating the game as a game. Ergo, definition is broad enough to cover this.

You're interpretation is just that, an interpretation. As the words are vague, it's even a good one. But so is Max's. That paragraph on metagaming is vague enough that it supports both of your views.

I don't think so. I think you have to take the passage as a whole including the specific examples to see what the writer intended. And that was in my view that "metagame thinking" is to be discouraged and curbed so the players don't create a problem for themselves like a TPK or waste valuable session time because they rely on information like how the DM usually designs encounters or writes descriptions.

"What does your character think?" Well, whatever I say he or she thinks. I'm the player and only I get to decide. I just need to make sure what my character thinks doesn't, for example, get him or her killed or waste valuable session time. It's fine then for me to say my character thinks trolls are vulnerable to fire. But it would be my fault if I acted on that assumption and it turned out badly for me because the DM changed up troll vulnerabilities. I should have done something to verify my assumptions before committing to that course of action.

That said, it's not a great passage on this matter and we could do without it entirely and my position in this thread would still stand. I'm not claiming the DMG supports the notions that engaging in "metagame thinking" is cheating, after all.

 

[Corwin]

That wasn't my answer to the question you posted, though. Keep trying.

You are correct. The way conversations work, something that was said before a question is generally not the answer to that question. Luckily for me, what your quote was, that I referenced, was what you asked me to go get in response to my asking you about said quote.

Shall we break it all down?

You continue to make a claim that metagaming is cheating. And that any thinking of the game as a game, including OOC info, is metagaming.

I ask you, backed up with quotes of your own words just in case I'm getting you wrong, if you are sure. I even provide examples that fit your definition.

Unable to answer truthfully, you go instead with the coy troll route, using clumsy dodges and non-answers.

I love that everyone gets to read along with your responses. If it was just for me I would feel guilty hoarding all the entertainment for myself.

 

[Maxperson]

You are correct. The way conversations work, something that was said before a question is generally not the answer to that question.

You asked a question that I answered in a response to someone else. The quote you got was not it. My experience with you is that you aren't interested in good faith conversation, so I have no interest in repeating myself to you. Go look up the real answer or not. Up to you.

 

[Corwin]

You asked a question that I answered in a response to someone else.

I asked you a direct question. You've yet to dare answer it. But, who knows, maybe you'll answer it. Up to you.