A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Aldarc]

I don't think that "metagaming" is a helpful or accurate term for TTRPGs. If we were talking about the "metagame" of League of Legends, for example, then we are talking about tier lists of characters, strategies, counters, etc. Likewise, if we were talking about the "metagame" of Magic the Gathering, then we would likewise be talking about deck builds, strategies, counters, etc. If we are talking about the "metagame" of a sport, then we are talking about winning strategies, fouling, clock management, etc.

If one had no knowledge of D&D, then one would probably believe that the "metagame" refers to effective character builds (i.e., optimization), dungeon navigation/combat strategies and tactics (e.g., 10-ft. pole, retainers hauling loot, attacks of opportunity, gaming advantage, etc.), resource management (e.g., 15-minute adventuring day, etc.), reward systems (e.g., gold = XP), and the culture surrounding play. In fact, such a player would likely even assume that having knowledge of troll counters would be encouraged, since knowing the meta is typically regarded as a sign of system awareness and player skill/mastery. TTRPGs is really the only medium that uses "metagame" as a pejorative used for DMs to shout at players for "ruining" what they planned. And yes, this use does foster in the players a "DM decides" approach that is at least comparable to MMI. Because implicit in this is the player having to constantly play with the question "Is it permissible, DM, that my character knows this?"

And some metagaming seems inherently impossible. Let us imagine that we were running the Caves of Chaos in the Keep on the Borderlands. There is a Total Party Kill. The party rolls up new characters. The reality is that these player characters will play things differently albeit with knowledge of the prior scenario. Party 1 cared about talking to the different NPCs. This time Party 2 doesn't give a flying duck about it, because they just want to get back to the CoC. Per (TTRPG) definition, that's metagaming. But the DM forcing them through those hoops again would also be largely performative, if not a punitive.

They arrive at the CoC. Which cave will they pick? Is it metagaming if they pick the cave they knew they experienced the TPK? (Probably.) The players know that the cave likely has less monsters in it now. The players know that their old loot is there on the bodies of the corpses or looted by the orcs. So they pick Cave no. 4 and resume orc-killing.

I think it is as much as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] said: this basically informs the DM what the players want to engage. They don't care about playing through the red tape again; they want to resume what they had previously been doing prior to the TPK.

 

[pemerton]

As far as trolls are concerned, the whole "metagaming" thing is the obvious result of a collision of play expectations.

When the game was invented, learning and remebering monster vulnerabilities was a player skill, much like becoming better at counting the cards and following the play in bridge. The fact that players would start new campaigns in new worlds with new PCs, and the implications this might have for the player/PC knowledge and experience interface, had barely been thought of. You can see the evidence of this in Gygax's DMG, where he hems and haws over whether experienced players starting a new campaign should start at 1st level, or whether it's OK for them to start with PCs whose mechanical prospects are more aligned with their player expertise.

Over the past 40 years, the "replay"/start-new-campaigns-at-1st-level paradigm has become predominant. But it's obvious that this paradigm is a poor fit for a design based aroudn reusing puzzles in those new campaign, which is what is going on with trolls and fire.

I mean, just look at it practically - what is a player who knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire, but who is playing a notionally ignorant PC, meant to do. How do you "roleplay" the process of solving a puzzle that you've already solved? The whole idea is ridiculous.

4e addressed this issue by changing the challenge: even if a group of players know that fire is needed to properly hurt the troll, the play of the game makes it non-trivial to deliver the right damage-type, because the PC buiild rules mean that it's unlikely that every PC will have the ability to do meaningful amounts of fire damage, and so their is a tactical challenge in bringing the right sort of damage to bear against the right target.

Another obvious approach would be to make the whole thing mechanically more abstract: a character has to succeed at some sort of knowledge or inspiration check in order to then generate a change in the game state which enhances attacks against the troll (the change could simply be a changed status, or perhaps a bonus die like an asset in Cortex+ Heroic).

But this isn't consistent with D&D's approach to knowledge, equipment, etc - which assumes players are free to choose what their PCs are doing (subject to what's on their equipment list), rather than gating those choices behind successful checks. Which takes us back to the general territory of the contrast between D&D and something like DW's Spout Lore and Discern Realities moves.

EDIT: I think there's some overlap, and synergy, between this post and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s just upthread of it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It still amazes me that you can say this while also unironically using the terms "metagaming" and "railroading" as pejoratives.

Well, metagaming and railroading are things Max doesn't do (or strongly believes he doesn't do). MMI sounds pretty close to things he does do. Viola.

 

[Manbearcat]

So there is discovery there. When I play a character, I have no idea what all my PC knows. I do know that he does not know everything I know, and I know that he knows things that I don't. Through roleplay, exploration of the world, background, and die rolls, I discover what he knows as I play the game.

Creation is also there, as my playstyle still involves creating the fiction of the game.

I think you misunderstood that part of my post. I wasn’t referring to a particular playstyle. I was referring to a particular moment of play where you, the player, already know something very relevant about the fiction (due to prior exposure) and the incentive structures of not advocating for your PC are misaligned with the goal of defeating the objective. In such a scenario, Discovery is absent and Competition becomes bastardized (as you work against your, the player and group, own competitive interests).

In such a moment of play, the nature of Creativity becomes something VERY different than if true Discovery and true Competition were both inputs to play.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], did you read the bits of the rules that I bolded: the monster knowledge checks apply when a check is made to determine a PC's knowledge. If the PC already has the knowledge because, for instance, the player has the knowledge and is acting on it, then obviously no check is required and the monster knowledge check rules do not apply.

If you house rule the bolded portion in, sure. The skill itself is intended to be used to determine PC knowledge when there is no in game reason for the PC to know the information, and Uncle Ernie telling the PC about every monster is just weak justification, not really a valid in game reason.

The point being, therefore, that [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s example - of a player narrating his/her PC having been told a tale about trolls by an adventuring uncle, thereby rationalising in the fiction how it is that the PC (like the player) knows that fire is needed to kill trolls - is completely consistent with the 4e rules for player and PC knowledge about monsters.

If you have to rationalize the knowledge, you've failed. There should be an appropriate reason for it.

"ra·tion·al·ize

verb
1.
attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate."

 

[Maxperson]

It still amazes me that you can say this while also unironically using the terms "metagaming" and "railroading" as pejoratives.

Metagaming is not a pejorative. It's a defined act that I view as cheating. If you don't, great. I wouldn't play in that game, but you are welcome to use it. Railroading is not a playstyle, so it's not a pejorative for a playstyle. "Mother May I" on the other hand is only used as a pejorative for a valid playstyle that doesn't actually involve any "Mother May I."

 

[Aldarc]

"ra·tion·al·ize

verb
1.
attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate."

pedantic adjective
pe·​dan·​tic | \ pi-ˈdan-tik

Definition of pedantic

1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant

 

[Maxperson]

pedantic adjective
pe·​dan·​tic | \ pi-ˈdan-tik

Definition of pedantic

1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant

Nice joke there.

However, in a discussion over the appropriateness of metagaming, showing that something is inappropriate is not pedantic. It's relevant.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you misunderstood that part of my post. I wasn’t referring to a particular playstyle. I was referring to a particular moment of play where you, the player, already know something very relevant about the fiction (due to prior exposure) and the incentive structures of not advocating for your PC are misaligned with the goal of defeating the objective. In such a scenario, Discovery is absent and Competition becomes bastardized (as you work against your, the player and group, own competitive interests)

I didn't misunderstand. I was offering a different viewpoint, and a failure to understand different viewpoints is where these discussions tend to go wrong. When I already know something as a player, but my character doesn't, I am indeed discovering what he knows via those activities I described. For me discovery is happening. For you, not so much.

I also don't view the competition as bastardized, as I and my players view roleplaying your character properly, even to the detriment of character and party, as good roleplaying. The competition doesn't override good roleplay. Roleplaying is a part of that competition and helps define it.

That means that if my PC doesn't know about troll weaknesses, it's good roleplaying to portray that in character. You may disagree and that's fine. People have different views and desires when playing the game. My way doesn't become bastardized or lose the discovery aspect I mentioned just because you view things differently, though.

 

[sd_jasper]

I'm going to chime in here with what I think this whole discussion on monster knowledge boils down to: Is it part of the game? What I mean by this is, does monster knowledge matter to the players and GM?

Let's say I'm playing a game with a "scholar" class or character type. My character's strength is the things that he knows. If any player can just declare that they know everything about monster X, then my characters role in the groups is greatly diminished or even made totally unnecessary. Even if I were not a scholar, but my character had invested in knowledge skills (over other abilities), then again I could be "playing the game wrong" if the GM was willing to just give out the info my character should have unique access too, to any PC.

Or if I were a GM and expected the players to invest in such skills/abilities, and that discovering a monsters weakness to play a major part of the game's combat... then I sure wouldn't allow players to simply declare that they know all about whatever monster.

On the other hand, if there is no expectation of discovering this sort of information... if the game is just about killing the monsters, not figuring out how to, then it would be fine to let the players make decorations of "uncle told me...". Better yet, it should be assumed that the characters know, and needs no justifying statements.

As an aside: Monster knowledge does matter in my games, and if PCs start charging a troll with fire w/o making a monster identification check, they may just end up running into Trolls that are healed by fire.