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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Disagree. Metagaming in that sense is a breach of the social contract. As such, you can deal with it as you note, by modifying your game such that you remove the triggers that cause the behavior or by discussing openly with the group the expectations of the social contract and a dressing it there. The OP's issues appear much better solved by the latter than the former. Of course, a social contract is enforced socially, so it may well be that the resolution is a parting of ways.

 

[Darkness]

Of course you're out, since you can't counter what I put forth. Cut and run is about the only tactic left. ...

Keep it civil, please. EN World might be about D&D, but it isn't D&D. As such, I must ask you to refrain from trying to make opportunity attacks when someone moves out of your reach.

 

[Valetudo]

Look dnd is a game, so there will always be atleast a little metagaming. I have seen a few players focus too much on their stats in my many years of gaming and it can get annoying.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Disagree. Metagaming in that sense is a breach of the social contract.

No, it's not. It could be, but that's different from is.

By "metagaming in that sense" I'm assuming you mean in the sense of "using knowledge your character wouldn't have.") It's possible you mean in a different sense.

As such, you can deal with it as you note, by modifying your game such that you remove the triggers that cause the behavior or by discussing openly with the group the expectations of the social contract and a dressing it there. The OP's issues appear much better solved by the latter than the former. Of course, a social contract is enforced socially, so it may well be that the resolution is a parting of ways.

Oh, yeah, that's fair. In the case of the OP the problem is people being jerks to each other, so talking about it makes a lot of sense. Of course, the DM could also try to adjust circumstances to mitigate the problem. Doing so might resolve the problem for everyone, with no parting of ways necessary.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, it's not. It could be, but that's different from is.

By "metagaming in that sense" I'm assuming you mean in the sense of "using knowledge your character wouldn't have.") It's possible you mean in a different sense.

No, I meant 'is'. If there's a problem at the table because of it, it's because it's a breach of the social contract at that table. If it's not a problem, it's not a problem.

Oh, yeah, that's fair. In the case of the OP the problem is people being jerks to each other, so talking about it makes a lot of sense. Of course, the DM could also try to adjust circumstances to mitigate the problem. Doing so might resolve the problem for everyone, with no parting of ways necessary.

I generally dislike resolution methods that require one person to make changes so that jerks don't have the chance to be jerks. This is a social event, and having to mitigate jerks is not something that I (a) am willing to do at social events and (b) something that I'm not willing recommend other people do at social events. (b) follows from (a) and generally not insisting that others act in ways I'm not willing to.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

That's not exactly where I was going, but I do agree with it.

My main goal when discussing the older definition of metagaming is to highlight that, more often than not in my experience, people that are concerned about it happening are actually causing it to happen more often than they stop it. Which is why I use a scenario in which an experienced and knowledgeable player is prevented from an action that literally no one would stop a brand new player from taking - where the character is not allowed to guess correctly, but would be allowed to guess incorrectly, entirely on the grounds of what the player knows, rather than what information the character has.

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."

Or, in a general sense, don't make the challenge dependent on not having any clue what is going on. So make water traps where the challenge is getting out/through before you are stuck and run out of breath (so water breathing is a time limit extender, not an instant defeat of the challenge), and let the challenge of a troll be a dangerous combatant (because they deal plenty of damage, and often travel in groups) rather than try to force it to be an indestructible combatant where you have to puzzle-out the way to stop it.

It's "badwrongfun" mindset.

That I also agree with.

 

[Corwin]

and let the challenge of a troll be a dangerous combatant (because they deal plenty of damage, and often travel in groups) rather than try to force it to be an indestructible combatant where you have to puzzle-out the way to stop it.

A fighter who eschews his greatsword in favor of a torch, against a troll, is making the fight harder anyway. A true metagaming power-gamer would kill it quickly with his most damaging attack(s) and *then* burn the troll before it can get back up again. Not whittle away at it slowly with an improvised club that happens to be aflame.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, I meant 'is'. If there's a problem at the table because of it, it's because it's a breach of the social contract at that table. If it's not a problem, it's not a problem.

Oh, my bad. I didn't mean to imply you meant something else. I know what you meant. You are just mistaken.

It doesn't have to be a "breach of the social contract" (unless you are intentionally being both arcane and expansive in the definition). It could just be different people with different presuppositions and expectations about the game, unaware that others prefer a different gaming style. It could be lack of clarity about definitions, and where those subjective thresholds lie. The 'social contract' might simply be, "Hey I got this game for Christmas...wanna play?"

I generally dislike resolution methods that require one person to make changes so that jerks don't have the chance to be jerks. This is a social event, and having to mitigate jerks is not something that I (a) am willing to do at social events and (b) something that I'm not willing recommend other people do at social events. (b) follows from (a) and generally not insisting that others act in ways I'm not willing to.

More often than not, when one person thinks the other is being a jerk, the feeling is reciprocated.

 

[machineelf]

Yeah, this.

As the Angry DM says, problems with so-called "metagaming" is usually a sign that not everybody at the table is in agreement about what constitutes "fun".

Well I guess that's on way to put it. I find it fun to role-play and I assume that's what the group is there to do. Other people have fun being jerks who happen to have no concept about what role-playing means. Just because they're having fun while being inconsiderate to other players at the table and oblivious to the concept of role-playing doesn't make them equally right.