Definition of Metagaming

[LostSoul]

Or lets say the PCs are fighting an Outsider with fire, cold, and electricity resistance. Nobody has Knowledge (the planes), so they can't know this. But one Player has the book and knows everything about the monster, so he tells hte wizard not to use fire, cold, or electricity attacks on it.

Why is that a bad thing, though?

Knowing what a monster is, and getting rewarded for it ("I know what this is! Its weakness is acid!") is fun.

 

[wayne62682]

Why is that a bad thing, though?

Knowing what a monster is, and getting rewarded for it ("I know what this is! Its weakness is acid!") is fun.

I would imagine because half the "fun" is finding it out.. and to most people it's not fun to know it magically, nevermind the fact that in most stories/movies the heroes always seem to know exactly how to beat what they face.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Why is that a bad thing, though?

Knowing what a monster is, and getting rewarded for it ("I know what this is! It's weakness is acid!") is fun.

Because it bypasses the in game method of knowing that: Knowledge (the planes). By bypassing the skill, you are reducing its value. Lets say someone in the party sunk 10 ranks into it so that he could identify Outsiders and be knowledgable about them. How will he feel when another guy who just bought all the books knows more about them than him?

It also breaks versimillitude. Why does Bob the fighter know the weakness of random demons when his skills are in Jump and Climb? He's never even read a book before. But, because he's read all the Monster Manuals, he knows all about the monsters?

Would you allow players to read a module while you were running it? "Oh, stop guys, there's a pit trap in the middle of this room. Walk around it."

There is no difference.

 

[wayne62682]

Because it bypasses the in game method of knowing that: Knowledge (the planes). By bypassing the skill, you are reducing its value. Lets say someone in the party sunk 10 ranks into it so that he could identify Outsiders and be knowledgable about them. How will he feel when another guy who just bought all the books knows more about them than him?

It also breaks versimillitude. Why does Bob the fighter know the weakness of random demons when his skills are in Jump and Climb? He's never even read a book before. But, because he's read all the Monster Manuals, he knows all about the monsters?

Would you allow players to read a module while you were running it? "Oh, stop guys, there's a pit trap in the middle of this room. Walk around it."

There is no difference.

If I were that person, honestly I wouldn't mind since even WITH 10 ranks in it I could wind up knowing nothing (i.e. rolling a 1 on the check), and then I've wasted it anyways.

 

[LostSoul]

I would imagine because half the "fun" is finding it out.. and to most people it's not fun to know it magically, nevermind the fact that in most stories/movies the heroes always seem to know exactly how to beat what they face.

I understand that kind of fun! It's the fun in encountering new monsters. Old monsters, you already know what they're up to. I've tried to play against what I knew, and I just find it frustrating.

But that's just me. (I am not trying to pass judgement here, I just want to present my point of view.)

 

[LostSoul]

Because it bypasses the in game method of knowing that: Knowledge (the planes). By bypassing the skill, you are reducing its value. Lets say someone in the party sunk 10 ranks into it so that he could identify Outsiders and be knowledgable about them. How will he feel when another guy who just bought all the books knows more about them than him?

Yep, I'm fine with that. If you want to study up, or have just been playing a long time, it's cool that you know all the tricks.

It might get you into trouble when you face a monster that the DM changed slightly, though... and that's where Knowledge comes in.

It also breaks versimillitude. Why does Bob the fighter know the weakness of random demons when his skills are in Jump and Climb? He's never even read a book before. But, because he's read all the Monster Manuals, he knows all about the monsters?

It doesn't have to be Bob the Fighter who's saying it. Bob's Player is making the knowledge known; any one of the PCs could be the one saying it.

I've done that before. I've picked up on a monster, while playing dumb old Bob, and then said, "Joe the Wizard tells us that these things are immune to fire! Joe, you are a really smart guy."

 

[wayne62682]

Because it bypasses the in game method of knowing that: Knowledge (the planes).

That wound indicate that this would be okay if there was no in-game method of knowing it? i.e. if there were no Knowledge (x) skills, this would be acceptable? I'm not questioning your reasoning, just trying to find out if perhaps that's why I have such a hard time grasping the concept of "metagaming".. i.e. I was weaned on 2nd edition D&D and had a five year gap or so before I got into 3rd, so the experience I had was when no such rules existed to bypass.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It doesn't have to be Bob the Fighter who's saying it. Bob's Player is making the knowledge known; any one of the PCs could be the one saying it.

Which I also deem as bad.

That wound indicate that this would be okay if there was no in-game method of knowing it? i.e. if there were no Knowledge (x) skills, this would be acceptable? I'm not questioning your reasoning, just trying to find out if perhaps that's why I have such a hard time grasping the concept of "metagaming".. i.e. I was weaned on 2nd edition D&D and had a five year gap or so before I got into 3rd, so the experience I had was when no such rules existed to bypass.

I was trying to use objective means for it to be bad instead of subjective, for the benefit of debate. Suffice to say, for me personally, knowing something without any in game reason isn't something I find fun, but its subjective, and not readily as debatable.

 

[pawsplay]

Knowledge checks are a bad example. A knowledge check in D&D will take IC information and hand it to the player, who can then OOC make a decision based on it.

There is nothing that requires you to have Knowledge in order to know something. Knowledge checks are completely metagame. For instance, if I fail my "know what hurts trolls" roll, I can still learn through play that fire hurts them, and in the future, I will not roll to know it again, nor has my Knowledge (nature) increased. Further, upon meeting a drow for the first time, my elf ranger can blurt out, "My father died in battle against these evil elves! They live beneath the ground and have strange powers. Their queen is a demon goddess named Lolth," and there is nothing in the rules to prevent it.

In fact, it may be necessary. Suppose your campaign starts at level 11, and your character has been allowed to take a PrC with a requirement that you have helped slay an adult dragon. In this case, it has been agreed that it was a red dragon. Now, if you encounter red dragons later, is the GM going to make you roll to know that red dragons breathe fire and can cast spells?

What if I have a ranger with favored enemy (lizardmen)? Do I need to roll in order to know that lizardmen often have druids as leaders? If my favored enemy is dragons, do I have to roll to know that some dragons change shape?

If metagaming is to disallowed, the FIRST thing to do should be Knowledge checks. They are a metagame tool. Simply knowledge, distinct from the ability to do something, is completely an IC decision.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Knowledge checks are a bad example. A knowledge check in D&D will take IC information and hand it to the player, who can then OOC make a decision based on it.

I don't follow that at all.

And, Knowledge checks are generally for things you've never seen before, in game. The first time you come across a destrachan, for instance, to know that it has sonic attacks so you know to cast silence defensivly against it. If no one in the party has ever seen a destrachan, and fails the Knowledge check to know what it is, then one Player tell another Player to have his cleric cast silence, I don't see how that could be anything but a bad thing.

How is this different than having read or played through a module before and planning according to how you, as a player, know it is laid out instead of as your character would know?