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

[Caliban]

I've shown evidence. There are literally thousands of definitions that apply to 5e that are not defined in 5e. Not being defined by 5e is not any sort of proof that the definition used by most games for decades is not applicable to 5e.

Your turn.

Your wasting your time.

 

[Maxperson]

At this point it is clear you attempting to "win" rather than to have a productive discussion. So rather than do something like arbitrarily insist your evidence isn't actually evidence like you've done, I'm just going to say this:

Stay classy, Max.

I'm out.

Of course you're out, since you can't counter what I put forth. Cut and run is about the only tactic left. I'm not attempting to "win the internetz!!!", but rather just showing that the usual definitions still apply.

 

[Lanefan]

What a character has done or would do in other situations is not relevant to what the character is doing in this specific situation. That's just an artificial limiter applying to the character's actions that results in an action one player could take without issue (because they are known not to have the knowledge you are worried is being acted upon, or because they've intentionally skirted your arbitrary restriction by playing a character with as little consistency to their behavior as is possible) become forbidden to another player for out-of-character reasons.

No. Definitely not.

Turn the scenario around a bit. Imagine that the DM and the Thief actually went in the other room and none of the players left at the table knew anything about the thief drowning.

Can a character cast water breathing without that being considered metagaming?

Given that the odds of such happening in any other case would realistically be near zero (I mean really, how often does someone cast a spell like WB just 'because'? Yeah, in 35 years I've never seen it either) I'd immediately suspect metagaming of some sort and probably wonder who had been looking at my notes.

Mistake #2, in my opinion, would be that the dungeon has drowning traps and is completely devoid of hints at the presence of unseen water.

Mistake? Or good defense on the part of the castle owner? A whole nother discussion awaits there sometime.

Yeah, everyone has a different tolerance for how imprecise their language is. I personally wish everyone had a lower tolerance for imprecise language, because if more precise language is used less time is spent feeling out what other people mean by the words they've used, and less misunderstandings happen, so conversations are more rapidly productive and, unless hostility is the intent, less hostile.

Problem is, there's a rather fine line between precision and pedantry...one is usually good, the other not so much.

That's not how hit points have ever worked in D&D. Cause more hit point reduction =/= causing greater damage or pain to a body if contact occurs.

In your view; and here's yet another great big can o' worms. Someone with 6 hit points who gets hit for 15 is a gashed-up mess dead or dying on the floor. Someone with 85 hit points who gets hit for 15 is still gonna feel it and probably have a bruise to show for it. Cue the argument.

Lan-"yep, there be worms here...in cans...opened cans.......mayday!"-efan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Given that the odds of such happening in any other case would realistically be near zero (I mean really, how often does someone cast a spell like WB just 'because'? Yeah, in 35 years I've never seen it either) I'd immediately suspect metagaming of some sort and probably wonder who had been looking at my notes.

How often you've seen an event happen doesn't actually affect the odds of it happening. For example, while you've never seen a pre-emptive and "just in case" casting of water breathing, I've seen multiple. And while I've never bit spit on by a camel, that doesn't affect the odds of whether camels spit.

Mistake? Or good defense on the part of the castle owner? A whole nother discussion awaits there sometime.

Water smells. It promotes mildew growth. It makes sounds if it is flowing or gets disturbed by something moving through it. Hiding of those details also leaves evidence, like the scent of cleaners or choice of construction materials or style. So it really does come down to whether the DM is giving an evocative description of the environment, or catching the players entirely off guard not with an act of cleverness but simply by not supplying them information that their characters should have.

Problem is, there's a rather fine line between precision and pedantry...one is usually good, the other not so much.

Pedantry is one of those things that when it gets brought up, it usually means someone is trying to discredit someone else by attacking their character.

In your view

I'm not talking about my view, I'm talking about what the D&D rule-books have said regarding the definition of hit points.

But yeah, worms, cans, all that. Maybe don't open any more?

 

[Lanefan]

How often you've seen an event happen doesn't actually affect the odds of it happening. For example, while you've never seen a pre-emptive and "just in case" casting of water breathing, I've seen multiple. And while I've never bit spit on by a camel, that doesn't affect the odds of whether camels spit.

I too have never been spit on by a camel; and though the odds of camels spitting are whatever they've always been, I'm more concerned about the odds of a camel spitting on me in the next several years...which, to my relief, are as close to zero as mathematics will allow.

Water smells. It promotes mildew growth. It makes sounds if it is flowing or gets disturbed by something moving through it. Hiding of those details also leaves evidence, like the scent of cleaners or choice of construction materials or style. So it really does come down to whether the DM is giving an evocative description of the environment, or catching the players entirely off guard not with an act of cleverness but simply by not supplying them information that their characters should have.

All true; the trap example I dreamed up on the fly probably wasn't the best. The principle, however, remains: player knowledge of an unexpected or out-of-place hazard doesn't and shouldn't equate to character knowledge of it, meaning out-of-the-ordinary preparation for just that hazard at just that time smells strongly of bad-faith metagaming.

Lan-"the worms shall wait for another day"-efan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The principle, however, remains: player knowledge of an unexpected or out-of-place hazard doesn't and shouldn't equate to character knowledge of it, meaning out-of-the-ordinary preparation for just that hazard at just that time smells strongly of bad-faith metagaming.

I'll close with saying that I think this is a case of finding something only because you were looking for it - by which I mean this particular example, and others along the same lines, wouldn't seem like playing in bad faith if you weren't already, for lack of a better phrase, on high alert.

Edit to add: To be clear, when I say finding something because you are looking for it, I'm referring to something said in an old Disney movie: "If you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will."

 

[Guest 6801328]

All true; the trap example I dreamed up on the fly probably wasn't the best. The principle, however, remains: player knowledge of an unexpected or out-of-place hazard doesn't and shouldn't equate to character knowledge of it, meaning out-of-the-ordinary preparation for just that hazard at just that time smells strongly of bad-faith metagaming.

We can always think of scenarios where the players shouldn't use information their characters don't have. If all else fails just invoke "what if somebody secretly reads the published module?".

I think where Aaron is going with this (and if he's not, I am) is that it's futile to police these sorts of things because there are too many shades of gray, and every player/DM has a different threshold for exactly which shade is one too many. So don't try to police it; just take the mistakes as lessons and do something differently next time.

In the water trap example, if the player wants to cast water breathing and the DM doesn't like it, don't argue: instead just make a note to self: "Next time, pass a note to the rogue. And/or broadcast the presence of water." If the veteran player with a level 1 character uses fire on the trolls, make another note: "Next time, don't call them 'trolls'. Or change fire vulnerability to whipped cream vulnerability. See if those metagaming asshats figure THAT one out."

But trying to define exactly where the threshold is, and calling everything past it metagaming, is a pointless exercise. It's "badwrongfun" mindset.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

How to deal With metagaming as a player:
Step 1: Go on the internet and try to resolve the exact meaning of "Metagaming".
Step 2: Repeat Step 1.

 

[Corwin]

Mistake #2, in my opinion, would be that the dungeon has drowning traps and is completely devoid of hints at the presence of unseen water.

Just an observation by a guy. But I think one might be able to find a correlation between what many refer to as the "gotcha" playstyle and those who hand-wring over dirty, filthy metagaming.