D&D 5E I played a game of Classic D&D.

[iserith]

I don't necessarily think that it is unfair, but it can be just as non-plausible as the DM who doesn't have such encounters.

Let's take an example. A group of 4 4th level PCs encounter an Adult Evil Dragon in 5E. Some DMs might think that this is unfair. Some DMs might think that this is "oh well, stuff happens".

I view it as forcing in a way. Sure, as DM, you can give some foreshadowing that the PCs should not enter the valley, maybe villagers told the PCs that there is an evil spirit in the valley that kills people. The villagers do not even know what it is because it kills anyone who goes near, but the villagers are scared crapless.

Issue #1: The DM added information into the game for a metagaming reason. He added the information because physical human beings are sitting at his table and he feels that he should warn those players of the danger, not because the PCs should actually attain that information. If the PCs would have not gone to the village, the villagers would not have been able to give them that information. So, the DM metagames and gives them foreshadowing in a different way. Maybe he throws a lone villager into the path that the PCs actually do take through the woods towards the valley, just to make sure that they get warned.

So, the players decide to go talk to this evil spirit and encounter an adult dragon. Yeah, they were warned, but again, the players know that this is a metagaming warning. One that the DM threw into their path, just so that later on he can say "Hey, I warned you". Meh.

Option #1. The dragon possibly talks to them a bit, but eventually kills them. This seems like the most logical outcome 99.9% of the time. How do you think that evil dragons get 90% of their lair treasure? By killing adventurers who have some treasure and possibly magical items. They don't get their lair treasures by knocking off farmers taking their vegetables on a cart to the local town. Second note on this: They are EVIL arrogant dragons. Why would a DM gimp them and not play them as badass evil? If the DM is going to allow for impossible or near impossible encounters, he should play the evil foes as actually evil.

Option #2. The PCs kowtow to the dragon or negotiate or whatever. The DM creates some plot device so that the Dragon decides to let the PCs live if they go off and do a quest for it. Why would this ever happen from an in character logical reason?

Issue #2: It happens for metagaming reasons. There are physical players at the DMs table and it takes a few hours for everyone to create a new PC and doing this sidetracks the current adventure. So the DM gives the players an out. Or, he doesn't (DM dependent, some DMs warn PCs, then they have the dragon kill them anyway).

So the point is this: The game can be played as CAS or CAW. If it is played as CAS, the DM is metagaming the power and frequency of the encounters. If it is played as CAW, the DM is either metagaming PC knowledge, or he is playing a game of "gotcha".

Either way, the DM is metagaming (or being a d__k). One form of DM metagaming is not really any better or worse than the other form. One avoids TPKs (for the most part) ahead of time by making encounters mostly level appropriate. One tries to avoid TPKs by adjusting player behavior by forcing them to make certain narrow decisions and not "stepping over the line". As a player, I sometimes just come to a game to kick butt, not to be schooled by a DM on the proper behavior of MY PC in each circumstance. Meh. Neither is definitively better or worse, but I know which one is more fun for me as a player (i.e.. I hate wasting my gaming time running into 5 Goblins at level 10 and the encounter is over before the last PC's init even comes up, just because the DM's world is "realistic"; or alternatively having my PC killed by the impossible encounter because the players ignored or misinterpreted the DM's hints du jour).

Neither approach is really "realistic" because both of them require metagaming on the part of the DM. It's just different types of metagaming. In one case, encounters should not always be level appropriate. In the other case, not all dangers should be telegraphed.

The CAW DM might think that his world is more plausible (or realistic), but he is still adapting it to the players (by throwing out hints and foreshadows and such quite a bit, shy of him being a rat bastard DM). It might not be as obvious that the DM is metagaming his world (although smarter players do catch on real quick), but he is.

I don't exactly understand what is meant by the DM "metagaming" here. Based on inference, I think it means that the DM is thinking about the game itself and is adjusting his or her approach based on the desired play experience, but I don't see why that is necessarily bad, provided the play experience is one the group agrees is desirable. I don't know what "CAS" or "CAW" means either.

Further, what you say is "the most logical outcome" or, for example, where dragons "get 90% of their lair treasure" is highly subjective in my view. Whatever you might come up with as the "most likely" thing is countered by practically limitless other plausible possibilities, given it's a fantasy world fueled by the imagination of the DM. I might have very good reasons, for instance, of saying that dragon's treasure was stolen from another dragon or gleaned by taxing the local duchy. Or that it will gladly talk to suitably deferential PC visitors because that's how it learns about what's happening outside its lair.

Finally, I don't see how any of this answer the question you quoted. I'm trying to though.

 

[Staccat0]

I'm not sure I understand where this conversation has gone and how people are using the idea of "metagaming" as a negative for DMs.

If there is a dragon living near the village that eats people, it stands to reason that people would know not to go there the same way I know not to go to certain neighborhoods at night. It also stands to reason that the may be other ecological impacts that point to a super-massive flying predator setting up shop.

It is metagaming, but not metagaming would be comically unrealistic. The DM's job is to meta game smartly. No way around it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Iry]

I never bought into the idea that all metagaming is bad. Certain kinds of metagaming should even be encouraged!

It's metagaming to say "My players enjoy X, so I'm going to put X in the game", and that's a good thing. It's metagaming to say "These monsters are smart enough to focus fire the guy in robes and murder him instantly in the first round. But let's insert a circumstance that makes them spread the damage around a little bit. Not too much, but just enough to give Bob a fair chance", and that's a good thing.

Metagaming as a player is also sometimes fine. It's metagaming to say "I have nothing in common with these people, but I'm going to stick with them anyway!". It's metagaming to say "My character would become furious and hulk smash! But that would derail the whole game. I should probably not do that." Both net positives for your game.

 

[KarinsDad]

While I disagree with a great deal of your post, I disagree most strongly with the idea that the DM can "metagame" their own campaign.

There are many terms you can use, but IMO, I don't think that DM really can metagame, as the DM isn't a participant in the "game." By definition, the DM has all the knowledge available. Acting or not acting on it may be good, bad, or in between in different circumstances, but it isn't metagaming.

I think the idea that metagaming refers to players is both traditional and widespread, see, e.g., wikipedia-

"In role-playing games, metagaming is an "out of character" action where a player's character makes use of knowledge that the player is aware of but that the character is not meant to be aware of. Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story.

Historically, metagaming in RPGs referred to the traditional military use of metagaming where players applied out-of-game information to gain an unfair advantage in a game."

The person responsible for adjudicating the rules and creating the world, on the other hand, kinda has to metagame.

Are you claiming that when a DM cuts a break to the dumb person at the table, that he isn't metagaming? Or when the DM "punishes" the wacky player?


While it is true that all DMs have to metagame, the point that I was making is that the CAW DM is injecting artificial hints and clues and such into his game because of the style of game and because it is a game with players at the table. The CAS DM does not have to inject artificial hints and such nearly as often (or at all) since his encounters and traps are typically level appropriate.


Let's use a different term: fudging. Some DMs fudge by adjusting dice rolls behind a screen. Some DMs fudge by making all encounters level appropriate. Some DMs fudge by throwing out a lot of hints. Some DMs fudge by rewarding players who play in a style that they like and by punishing players who play in a style that they don't like.

All DMs fudge in one way or another (or in many ways). That doesn't make fudging a bad thing. But the DM who makes most or all encounters level appropriate is modifying the game world based on the artificial levels of the PCs. This is totally a metagaming decision. The game world adapts to the levels of the PCs.


PS. DMs ARE participants in the game. In fact, they are the most influential participants of all. The NPCs help make up the story as much as the PCs, as does the world the DM creates. A lot of people do not consider the DM to be a player. He is. He's sitting at the table, he's making decisions, he has his NPCs taking actions, etc. He just isn't (typically) running a PC.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, going back to the OP, I really do love the BECMI and 1e games!

As people put it earlier, one of my favorite aspects was that character creation took about two minutes, and your characters would grow organically from the adventures and (ahem) the loot they got.

You didn't plan out your character advancement; you lived and changed based on your experiences.

It's kind of interesting where this shift went from organic character progression to this idea that character creation/advancement became sort of a game unto itself. Where there was a shift from you advancing your PC based on in game experiences, to one where you pre-planned it out in advance. Where "builds" became an actual thing. I think this started in 3e, especially when prestige classes were a thing, and multiclassing was the expectation.

 

[KarinsDad]

Finally, I don't see how any of this answer the question you quoted. I'm trying to though.

I did start off that post with "I don't necessarily think that it is unfair". I wasn't trying to answer the question I quoted. I was trying to show that the term "unfair" was the wrong one to illustrate the issue. It's not unfair IMO.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[KarinsDad]

It's kind of interesting where this shift went from organic character progression to this idea that character creation/advancement became sort of a game unto itself. Where there was a shift from you advancing your PC based on in game experiences, to one where you pre-planned it out in advance. Where "builds" became an actual thing. I think this started in 3e, especially when prestige classes were a thing, and multiclassing was the expectation.

Agreed. 3E with the concept of feats and prestige classes and partial ability gain multiclassing opened Pandora's Box. I think a lot of that buffet stuff came from computer games like "The Bard's Tale".

 

[Iry]

I think this started in 3e, especially when prestige classes were a thing, and multiclassing was the expectation.

I think Prestige Classes were definitely the biggest promoter of 'Builds', since you HAD to meet certain requirements to even take many prestige classes. But it wasn't an original idea. You used to have to earn your way into Bard or Paladin.