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

[machineelf]

I was basing my response off what the OP said, in this case, this bit is the relevant one (bold added for emphasis):

"They spot me from a distance, talking with a hooded figure. There is no way of them knowing who he is or how he looks.
Then one of them shouts, "Did you kill the old man yet?"."

The player having the character shout about the old man is clearly doing so to grief the player of the rogue, which is a jerk move - but that doesn't make it metagaming.

Mm, come on now. We're all smart here. No need to pretend and give them more credit than they should get. They made that statement about "killing the old man" based on what they overheard at the table between the DM and the rogue.

 

[machineelf]

"Meta-gaming" is not really a hard concept to understand for most of us. "Meta" comes from the Greek meaning "beyond" or "after." It has the sense of being outside of a concept, or above the concept. So meta-gaming is what happens when you play the game above or outside the knowledge and traits that your character would have. It's when you play based on the knowledge you have as a player at the table have instead of playing based on the knowledge your character has. It's essentially one of the ways a person is no longer "role-playing."

So when a character is not present to overhear a conversation that another character is having, but then later walks into the scene and starts speaking as though he knows everything about what had been going on (because the player at the table obviously heard the exchange), then yes, that is meta-gaming. There is no way for that character to have known it was an old man, nor any reason why he would form an opinion on whether he should be killed or not.

If you still (and stubbornly so) don't understand what meta-gaming is, then you're on your own. And a person who refused to understand the concept wouldn't be allowed in my game, honestly. That might sound mean and I don't intend to be mean, but if you don't understand what role-playing is and what meta-gaming is, then you should find another game. You should find a game where all the other players don't mind setting the role-playing concept ablaze and stepping all over each other. Sounds like a real crap-show to me. Have fun!

And the meta-gaming concept applies to all sorts of role-playing systems, not just 5e. This whole argument that if meta-gaming is not precisely defined in the newest edition, then the game designers meant to throw out the concept of meta-gaming that has long been understood by most role-players when they designed 5th edition, seems really silly to me.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...walks into the scene and starts speaking as though he knows everything about what had been going on...

Saying what the character said does not require knowing anything about what is going on.

If you still (and stubbornly so) don't understand what meta-gaming is, then you're on your own.

I do understand the concept. If I didn't, I'd likely have fallen into the same trap as so many others that keep looking at information "above or outside the knowledge and traits that your character would have" instead of at whether what the players knows is actually necessary for the character to know to act they way they are acting.

And the meta-gaming concept applies to all sorts of role-playing systems, not just 5e.

Can you point me to any passages in games not directly related to D&D that talk about metagaming? I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I don't recall any off-hand, and am also pretty sure I've never run across forum discussion about metagaming outside of the D&D sphere of games.

Edit to add: I've just checked the latest editions of Exalted, Call of Cthulhu, and Chronicles of Darkness, doing a text search for both "metagam" and "meta-gam" so that I would find any use of those words ending with -e or -ing, and came up with no hits. Thought it was interesting enough to mention.

This whole argument that if meta-gaming is not precisely defined in the newest edition, then the game designers meant to throw out the concept of meta-gaming that has long been understood by most role-players when they designed 5th edition, seems really silly to me.

I don't get why you find it silly for someone to try to take a word that is nearly meaninglessly broad or vague and try to provide it a definition of actual use and clarity.

 

[Arial Black]

I know that you weren't really arguing about water breathing per se (just using it as an example to discuss metagaming), but when I DMed SKT the (6th level) druid cast it every single day on every PC because it lasts all day and he had enough slots.

 

[machineelf]

Can you point me to any passages in games not directly related to D&D that talk about metagaming? I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I don't recall any off-hand, and am also pretty sure I've never run across forum discussion about metagaming outside of the D&D sphere of games.

Edit to add: I've just checked the latest editions of Exalted, Call of Cthulhu, and Chronicles of Darkness, doing a text search for both "metagam" and "meta-gam" so that I would find any use of those words ending with -e or -ing, and came up with no hits. Thought it was interesting enough to mention.

I can see I'm not going to convince you, and honestly I think you have this odd viewpoint that the only thing that matters is whether something is explicitely stated in the latest core rulebook, tradition and history of roleplaying be damned.

I am actually surprised that any system mentions the term "metagaming," because it's a term invented by the community a long time ago to help explain a concept that is assumed in D&D and all over role-playing games since they were first invented. It's when you don't role-play ... in a role-playing game. We just made the term up to help explain the concept. But from the beginning, it's always been assumed that you are playing a character, with the traits and knowledge that character has. That's the whole reason for creating a character in the first place. If we weren't creating characters, then we wouldn't be playing a "role-playing game." But since we are creating and playing characters, it's a given (non-debatable) that we play that character accordingly to the traits we rolled the character with and the knowledge that character has. We are a character in a story, essentially, and therefore we don't just know everything that every other character knows or learns if our character couldn't possible have learned it ourselves.

It's always been assumed that if your character is not in a room to have a conversation or some secret knowledge, then you play your character as though they don't have that knowledge, even if you as a player heard the DM tell it to someone else. You're playing your character, hence, role-playing. And if you start just pretending your character knows everything that you as the player heard the DM tell to another player's character, even though your character couldn't possibly know it, then you are not role-playing and are meta-gaming.

It's the whole reason why if you roll a character with really low intelligence, you play the character as though he/she is kind of dumb, and you don't play as though they know every fact possible and are a genius. It's called role-playing, and it's been in the game since the very beginning. It's part of the fun, playing the role. And if you don't play the role, then you aren't role-playing. If one of the other characters gets a secret message that only she has read, and it says the magic word to open the locked door is "ala-kazam," and then when you walk up the door you have your character say, "ala-kazam," even though there is no possible way for your character to have known that, you are no longer role-playing, you are meta-gaming.

Whether the actual word is mentioned in a rulebook or not, the concept is written all over the pages and always has been, from character creation onward. It' the very core of what role-playing means. Your character obviously doesn't know what the magic door-opening word is unless your CHARACTER (not the player) has learned it somehow.

How many times can I possibly explain it. The concept is there in all role-playing games from the very beginning, and the community came up with the term "metagaming" to explain those ways in which people fail to role-play in ways that give themselves an advantage by giving their characters knowledge they couldn't possibly have.

I don't get why you find it silly for someone to try to take a word that is nearly meaninglessly broad or vague and try to provide it a definition of actual use and clarity.

The word isn't meaningless. I find it extremely easy to understand, and it has a long history. You can google the term and easily understand the concept in a matter of minutes. This claim that the term meaningless and has no definition is silly. It's quite apparent what the term means. You sort of want to have your cake and eat it too, because you are debating the term in this thread as though you understand the term, but then are claiming that the term is meaningless. Which is it? If you find the term meaningless, shouldn't your comments in this thread be, "hey I don't understand what that term means, could you explain it to me?" I bet you 99% of the people reading this thread understands clearly what the term means, so obviously it is not meaningless.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...you have this odd viewpoint that the only thing that matters is whether something is explicitely stated in the latest core rulebook, tradition and history of roleplaying be damned.

I do not have, nor have I ever expressed, that viewpoint.

I am actually surprised that any system mentions the term "metagaming," because it's a term invented by the community a long time ago to help explain a concept that is assumed in D&D and all over role-playing games since they were first invented. It's when you don't role-play ... in a role-playing game. We just made the term up to help explain the concept. But from the beginning, it's always been assumed that you are playing a character, with the traits and knowledge that character has.

Every RPG I've ever read assume in its writing that it is the absolute first exposure a person is going to have to role-playing games in general. That's why they all include the intro section that says describes what a role-playing is and how you play one.

...yet, I've searched quite a few games for the iterations of metagame and meta-gaming, and have not found it to be present. Except in D&D.

...then you play your character as though they don't have that knowledge...

If the knowledge the player has is not necessary for the character to know to do what they are doing, then that is playing the character as if it doesn't have the knowledge.

If a player that had no clue about that knowledge at all could have their character do a thing, then that thing has to be allowed to all players regardless of their knowledge - because otherwise that is forcing people to do what you call metagaming.

You sort of want to have your cake and eat it too, because you are debating the term in this thread as though you understand the term, but then are claiming that the term is meaningless. Which is it? If you find the term meaningless, shouldn't your comments in this thread be, "hey I don't understand what that term means, could you explain it to me?"

If I didn't understand the term, I would not be certain that it is meaningless. The two are not in conflict.

The reason why I can understand the term and simultaneously think it to be meaningless is simple: I've been accused of metagaming because I played my character based on what my character knew at the time, and had a DM insist that I pick a different course of action because of what I as a player knew. I've been the player of the fighter that is trying to attack an unknown monster with a burning log, because that's what a fighter might do in that situation. And I've had the DM tell me "Woah! You can't do that, your character doesn't know that he has to burn a troll to kill it. You're metagaming." And found him unable to explain to me how me choosing an action along the lines of "Well, I know that's a troll, and fire would be really helpful... so I've got to have my character do something I know is less useful, rather than do what any real person in his situation might do based on nothing more than 'oh crap, monster! I'll toss this burning log I've got in my hand in it's face and see if that helps'" wasn't the very thing he was insisting I should be avoiding doing.

 

[machineelf]

The reason why I can understand the term and simultaneously think it to be meaningless is simple: I've been accused of meta-gaming because I played my character based on what my character knew at the time

Huh? You were accused of meta-gaming, because you played your character based on what your character knew at the time? That's the opposite of meta-gaming. That's role-playing.

Look, I know I'm not going to convince you. I think your arguments don't make much sense, but you play it how you want to play it and have fun. I just wouldn't let you play in my game if you don't have a grasp on the concept of meta-gaming and why it is antithetical to the core concept of role-playing. But to each their own.

But I have questions about the example you gave:

I've been the player of the fighter that is trying to attack an unknown monster with a burning log, because that's what a fighter might do in that situation. And I've had the DM tell me "Woah! You can't do that, your character doesn't know that he has to burn a troll to kill it. You're metagaming." And found him unable to explain to me how me choosing an action along the lines of "Well, I know that's a troll, and fire would be really helpful... so I've got to have my character do something I know is less useful, rather than do what any real person in his situation might do based on nothing more than 'oh crap, monster! I'll toss this burning log I've got in my hand in it's face and see if that helps'" wasn't the very thing he was insisting I should be avoiding doing.

I'd have to know more detail about this if I were the DM to know if I'd rule this meta-gaming or not. Did you use a log from the campfire? Why didn't you attack with your weapon? Would you throw a burning log from the campfire at any enemy that attacked you during the night, or only a troll?

Assuming that your character has never fought a troll before and never learned its weakness before, and assuming you had your weapon but instead you decided to toss a burning log from the campfire at the troll instead of attacking it the way you normally would, then yeah it sounds like meta-gaming to me.

Given that my assumptions about your story are true, then it would be extremely clear to me and everyone else at the table that you as a player knew the trolls weakness and that's why you chose to attack with a burning log instead of your weapon. Pretending that's a natural reaction makes my b.s. meter go off the charts unless you regularly toss burning logs at all the enemies you fight.

Now, in general I don't get bent out of shape over monster weaknesses too much. Those aren't the biggest problems of meta-gaming to me. But if that's the general nature in which you play the game (trying to get every advantage you could based on you the player's personal knowledge of the mechanics of the game), then it would come across to me as though you had a sort of cheater's approach or power-gamer's approach to the game, and you didn't really respect the concept of role-playing. And I wouldn't want a person like that in my games because that's super annoying.

I mean, I think I get it. You're the kind of player who knows that the rogue drowned in a water trap hours before your character was even there to see it, so you cast water breathing, and when the DM calls out the obvious meta-gaming, you come up with some ridiculous excuse like, "hey, maybe I just felt like casting that spell by chance. It doesn't have to mean I knew about the water-trap." It reeks of cheating, and if the other players at your table don't get annoyed at you for pulling stunts like that, then you've got a special kind of group to play with (or else you are somewhat oblivious to their annoyance at the way you power-game and meta-game). Again, that kind of game-play doesn't fly at my table, and the excuses as to why it wasn't the use of meta-game knowledge sound shady, as well as not-convincing.

But again, to each their own, and I hope you and your group have fun.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Huh? You were accused of meta-gaming, because you played your character based on what your character knew at the time? That's the opposite of meta-gaming. That's role-playing.

Yes, exactly. I was just role-playing. But that DM, and at least one poster on this forum I've presented the scenario to, that are looking for metagaming expecting to find it believe they have found it in my actions - even though the character performing the same action I chose to while being played by a person with different knowledge than I have would have been acceptable to them.

I just wouldn't let you play in my game if you don't have a grasp on the concept of meta-gaming and why it is antithetical to the core concept of role-playing. But to each their own.

You keep suggesting I don't have a grasp on the concept of metagaming. You should stop that because it isn't true, and makes it look like you are attacking me as a person instead of addressing my arguments.

Did you use a log from the campfire?

Yes. I used a log from the campfire I was role-playing my character as tending just before the DM described the monster attacking.

Why didn't you attack with your weapon?

Because I had a dangerous weapon already in-hand, so I didn't detour to my nearby pile of gear. So, role-playing the urgency of the situation, basically.

Would you throw a burning log from the campfire at any enemy that attacked you during the night, or only a troll?

I would use a burning log from the campfire against any enemy attacking while I am tending the fire, unless it seemed obvious to my character that fire would not be dangerous to the enemy (i.e. I wouldn't attack a salamander or fire elemental with a burning log). I am less able to determine whether I'd use the campfire as a weapon under different circumstances, because the details of those circumstances would have to be known (where my character is and what they are doing at the time of attack) in order for me to even think of what I might have a character do.

Assuming that your character has never fought a troll before and never learned its weakness before...

Neither of those details need to be known for the character to decide to try using fire. You, like almost all of the people that have ever disagreed with me about this scenario, are getting distracted. The question is whether the character is doing something they can't based on the knowledge that the character has - not what I know as a player.

Given that my assumptions about your story are true, then it would be extremely clear to me and everyone else at the table that you as a player knew the trolls weakness and that's why you chose to attack with a burning log instead of your weapon. Pretending that's a natural reaction makes my b.s. meter go off the charts unless you regularly toss burning logs at all the enemies you fight.

Answer me these, please:
1) Would you stop a brand new player that you know for certain has no idea what a troll is or that fire is useful in killing them choose to use a burning log from the campfire instead of their sword to fight the unknown creature attacking while they were tending the fire at camp one night?
2) Assuming the answer to the above is the "Yes" that I am positive it will be, why can't I role-play the same thing?

And I wouldn't want a person like that in my games because that's super annoying.

I agree that someone playing not in good faith is super annoying. I just don't agree with the idea that an experienced player such as myself playing their character in a way that any inexperienced player could is a valid example of playing not in good faith.

You're the kind of player who...

I'll stop you right there. Anything I've mentioned in these discussions which I have not explicitly said is an actual example of me playing a character is not an actual example of me playing a character or how I would play a character. So you really don't know enough to be making determinations as to what kind of player I am.

It reeks of cheating

I think this touches back on what [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] said about the people stressing over metagaming often being the ones that are trying to inflict "gotcha" style game-play on their players.

Water breathing at a character's precautions whim seems like cheating because the DM is thinking "Hey, no fair! Now my super lethal surprise that I made sure your characters couldn't possibly counter is ruined."

Where-as in my game, it just seems like someone being cautious... but then, there would also be clues for the characters to have picked up on like the smell of mildew, or damp surfaces, or muffled sounds of water, that indicate what upcoming challenges might involve. But that is a play-style thing, as I prefer traps to be a thing players interact with, rather than spots on the map that functionally do auto-damage when someone passes them.

...and the excuses as to why it wasn't the use of meta-game knowledge sound shady, as well as not-convincing.

Trying to phrase this thought in as many ways as possible so that it might actually click for you one of the times: It's the DM using meta-game knowledge - not the player. The player is just role-playing their character how they want to role-play their character. The DM is the one insisting on bringing the player's knowledge into the process of deciding what the character can or can't do.

If I have to use not-fire on a troll because I know it's a troll and I know trolls die faster if you use fire, that's my player knowledge shaping my character's action, which is the exact thing that the non-5th edition definition of metagaming is. If I was just using my characters knowledge, it wouldn't matter what he knows about trolls and fire, he could use fire just because it is conveniently on hand and not obviously likely to fail.

Using player knowledge to make sure the character does something less than optimal is still using player knowledge instead of character knowledge.

It's not consistent for metagaming to no longer be metagaming because the resulting action is less beneficial to the character than another course of action would be.

I think that's as many ways as I can say it, so that's the end of the debate portion of the discussion for me. I'll gladly keep answering questions or exploring examples, though.

 

[machineelf]

I think this touches back on what @Corwin said about the people stressing over metagaming often being the ones that are trying to inflict "gotcha" style game-play on their players.

Water breathing at a character's precautions whim seems like cheating because the DM is thinking "Hey, no fair! Now my super lethal surprise that I made sure your characters couldn't possibly counter is ruined."

No, that's not the reason I wouldn't like it. I like when my players come up with ingenious or original ideas to tackle tough challenges or traps. I wouldn't like you casting a water breathing spell ahead of time because it is so painfully obvious that you are basing that decision on the meta-knowledge you gained, but your character doesn't know, and you are power-gaming (and not playing according to the spirit of role-playing.) And if the DM never told you that you smelled "mildew" or noticed "damp surfaces," you are just making things up to try to justify your gaming manipulation.

And it would also be painfully obvious that you happened to be tending the fire, and threw the fiery log at the troll, just because it was a troll, especially if you had never mentioned anything about tending the fire before the troll showed up. Now if you had said you were tending the fire before you even knew there was going to be an attack that night, or by what, then I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. But the scenarios you are painting to me seem to illustrate that you are clearly using special knowledge not afforded to your character to get advantages in game-play. And you are trying to offer explanations as to why your character would just happen to be doing the right thing at the right moment by chance, which is wholly unbelievable to me.

Using player knowledge to make sure the character does something less than optimal is still using player knowledge instead of character knowledge.

You keep saying this and it doesn't make any more sense the more times you say it. No you are not using "player knowledge" when your character walks through a dungeon in the same manner he always walks through a dungeon each time. Now I have nothing against casting a breathe water spell, or whatever spell you want, based on some of the clues and descriptions a DM might give you. So if you did actually smell some mildew and see signs of a water trap, then so be it. But if the trap was so well hidden and/or you failed a perception check and there was no way you'd ever know a water trap was there, it is ludicrous to think your character just randomly decided to cast breathe water on a whim. It's so obvious that you are meta-gaming, it is laughable.

So look, we are obviously not going to agree on this. Your insistence that it's all just sheer dumb luck that you happened to be tending the fire decided to throw a log at the troll when you've never done that before against any other non-fire vulnerable monster, or happened to decide on a whim to cast breathe water at the exact perfect moment, is stubborn. I'm just not buying that story, and it is clear power-gamesmanship and not in the spirit of role-playing. (In other words, if you truly didn't know about the water trap, would you have cast the breathe water spell? No you would not. If you truly never heard about a troll's weakness, would you really have decided to throw a burning log at it? No you would not.)

And imagine what it's like for the other players you might play with who are trying to adhere to the spirit of roleplaying, not knowing what happened to the rogue in the water-trap, trying to play their character without adding in special knowledge their character wouldn't have. And here you come along giving yourself all these edges that you shouldn't have. It honestly gets annoying for other players. If the people you play with don't mind it, then so be it. But at least now hopefully you are more aware that a lot of people do mind it and they see through the claims you offer as to why it's not meta-gaming and is perfectly fine.

 

[machineelf]

As for this:

Answer me these, please:
1) Would you stop a brand new player that you know for certain has no idea what a troll is or that fire is useful in killing them choose to use a burning log from the campfire instead of their sword to fight the unknown creature attacking while they were tending the fire at camp one night?
2) Assuming the answer to the above is the "Yes" that I am positive it will be, why can't I role-play the same thing?
I agree that someone playing not in good faith is super annoying. I just don't agree with the idea that an experienced player such as myself playing their character in a way that any inexperienced player could is a valid example of playing not in good faith.

1. No. I wouldn't stop a player who I knew for certain did not know a troll's weakness from using a fiery log to attack it, because if I knew for certain they didn't have that knowledge, then I know they aren't metagaming and they just happened upon (like actually happened upon, not merely claimed they happened upon) an effective way to combat a troll.
2. Why would you assume my answer to be yes? Honestly, I don't know why you think my answer would be anything but "no" to the above question. Maybe you meant you would assume my answer to be "no" when you typed "yes"? In your case, when I know that you (as a player) have knowledge about a creature's weakness, but your character doesn't know about it, and you use that weakness against it in a very unlikely way (a way that you normally wouldn't use), then it's very clear you are using your knowledge to gain an edge. And especially if you were prone to doing this sort of meta-gaming thing all the time, it would be even more obvious.

If the examples we've talked about, particularly the water-trap one, is not an example of playing in bad faith, then what is your definition of playing in bad faith? If that's not an example of it, than I'm not sure what crosses the line to you.

Edit: I had a personal question for you here, but it might have come across in the wrong way, so I'm removing it.