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

[Maxperson]

Because if a spell lasts the whole day, and it is renewed the next day, then you can basically keep the spell active permanently. One of the things that makes a spell caster interesting to play in my opinion, is having to decide when to use a spell, or when not to. I don't want spells to just become part of a daily routine, that seems boring to me.

Agreed for the most part. I'd be okay with it as is for the 24 hours if the cost to cast it was significantly higher than a piece of straw or reed.

 

[kalil]

I have my character openly question the validity of the in-character information by asking "Where did you read or hear that!?".

When they make up, and I know we haven't been there as a party (if it was like the library at Candle Keep) I ask when they did, and if it is "In my character's background..." and it isn't - I pointedly ask the GM if I am allowed to make up about what my character knows on the fly whenever I want as well?

That last bit is done off to one side in private and that usually deals with the issue...

... but if the GM persists, I start having my character claim to know everything that I know about monsters and magical items etc. until I am called up on it and then point to the original metagame abuse as justification.

I've only done that once - but it was the bitter pill that solved the problem from that point onwards.

Metagaming is not as hard to spot, or as justifiable as many claim it is. It isn't really hard to spot and it IS an abuse. What is the point of a character having taken points in Knowledge Arcana who roles the dice when she's asking the GM from information on a spell when the half-orc barbarian player is spouting the range and burst radius of it "cos I got hit by wun wunce..."

I have as a GM (on one occasion at a club game with a metgaming player) made them pay an Inspiration Point for the unjustified in-character knowledge they 'just happened to have'. No-one thought that was a bad call at the time or since in that game.

I am sure the group where really happy to have you there, acting like that during their games and really showing them all the badwrongfun they had been having all those years!

 

[76512390ag12]

Gosh, what a lot of "your fun is bad fun" going on!

Here's an idea, you can enjoy the games you play in all these ways, even at the same time or at least sequentially.

Step 1: discuss what you like and want.
Step 2: agree on what you will do together

Step 3: respect other people's approach



Posted by C4-D4RS on the MetroLiberal HoloNet

 

[76512390ag12]

Were I running 5e I'd certainly rule that one out as it's written: way too generous for a 3rd-level...anything. To me that reads more like what a 6th or 7th level spell ought to be capable of. For 3rd level...maybe 1 target for a long time, or your level's worth of targets for a much shorter time (15 minutes? Half an hour?). But 10 targets for 24 hours...yeah, why wouldn't you cast that every single day even if you're in mid-desert.

As for ritual casting in general, I'd certainly take a very long hard look at it, with axe in hand, if this one spell is a typical example.

Lanefan

It's clearly a "let the party have an underwater adventure" spell. It really has no other utility. If you want to run an underwater game you'll have to make this happen somehow so why sweat the details?

Posted by C4-D4RS on the MetroLiberal HoloNet

 

[76512390ag12]

This is where you lose many of us. You, not the player, are deciding the line between what their character knows and doesn't know. That seems a step too far. It's not your character!

I suggest that a better approach is to adjust all monsters a little. First, dint call it a troll. Second, switch in or out some abilities.

Or, accept that in a fantasy world with lethal monsters, people would learn this stuff with their nursery rhymes. In fact they would be the nursery rhymes.

Posted by C4-D4RS on the MetroLiberal HoloNet

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

Er...sorry. You don't get to arbitrarily make those decisions. End of story.

Au contraire, mon ami - he outright didn't know it unless the dice happen to say that by some chance he did.

I guess the argument, then, is where are the boundaries of "general setting knowledge" going to be? And that one is probably a table-by-table decision.

Lanefan

So I'm having difficulty telling what you mean by the first two lines I qouted (and many of your statements similar to them in other posts). When you say things like "You don't get to arbitrarily make those decisions. End of story." are you referring to

1) how it works at the table when you DM.
2) how it works at the table with your DM.
3) how you think most groups work.
4) how you think the game is intended to work.
5) how everyone ought to do it.
6) or some other thing.

I really can't tell. I expect it's 1 or 2, but sometimes it comes across as 4 or 5.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The type of game you've described in this thread that you play and DM is one I would find horrible to play in. A D&D game where players brought in knowledge that their characters would almost assuredly have no knowledge of and were applauded for it would be a game I would leave and never go back to.

In another response (about a code to defuse a nuclear bomb or something similar) you rhetorically asked that if there is no challenge why bother?

Why bother? Because it's a role-playing game. And I'm playing a role. There is no challenge in breakfast, but I've had great fun role-playing breakfast (and other meal times). Thinking as your character, talking as your character, acting as your character, doing the things your character would do is incredibly fun. I've played D&D where my character felt little more than a widget and some stats and other times I've played D&D where my PC has a personality I knew inside and out. "Gratuitous play-acting" - as Elfcrusher called it - is what made my most memorable D&D games so memorable and something more than a computer game or board game (both of which i like. But I play RPGs for something different).

I don't primarily play RPGs to overcome challenges by any means necessary. Or even by means of using information my character wouldn't likely have. Heck, I don't even primarily play D&D to overcome challenges. I play D&D to play a role and have fun. The adventures we go on and challenges we over come are the means to that end of having fun and playing a role.

Now, I can't play D&D and totally separate character and player knowledge. But there is a difference between interacting with the game world based on what the player knows and interacting with the mechanics with what the player knows. As an example - exactly what is the character knowledge for a divination wizard and his two rolls he gets to replace a day? How does he know what the die rolls are?

TL;DR - I'd rather play in secondhander's game with people getting into their roles and trying to think and act as their characters, even if they aren't very good at it.

The thing I don't understand is why you (and others) think that everything has to be play-acted to make the play-acting fun. Sure, some of my most memorable RPG moments are from the pure improv acting as well.

The thing is, those moments of pure inspiration are the exception, not the norm. Most of the play-acting ends up being rather mundane, and honestly I get tired of non-professional actors trying to be "in character" for everything. Much of the time my reaction (un-voiced) is, "Yes, yes, I know your character does that. Tell me something new." I just don't find it interesting to hear the Barbarian describe, yet again, how he howls the war-cry of his people while recklessly hurling himself against his foe yadda yadda yadda.

What I love are those moments when somebody does something unexpected because of their character. And sometimes it isn't something that necessarily fits with their character so far; sometimes it's the player having a great narrative idea and deciding on the spur of the moment to take his character that way. And maybe after the session he fleshes out his backstory a little bit as a result.

After all, isn't this what "character development" is, in literature and cinema? The unfolding/discovery of a character over time? And the wonderful thing about it is that it doesn't depend on the player's acting ability. Heck, it can even be 3rd person. It's the actions/words themselves that delight us, not the quality of the delivery (nor the monotonous consistency of it).

Now, as this relates to the "challenge" part, when players can think of an interesting/novel way for their characters to struggle with a non-challenge (meaning that we, the players, know the answer but our characters do not) then I'm all for it. If I'm inspired with a way to narrate my character's ignorance in a way that I think will surprise and delight the other players, and develop my character's character, then I might do it. But to sit around flailing on a non-challenge just because our characters would is, to me, exceedingly dull. I won't pretend to not know about trolls or whatever just for the sake of adhering to "being in character".

Let's take the example of the catacombs and the holy water, where I know my DM likes to use undead. I suppose it's possible that I might think of a way to not bring holy water such that it will add fresh perspective on my character's personality, but honestly as I write this I'm stumped as to what that might look like. (Maybe I'm a miser and unwilling to spend the gold. Yeah, that works, I could see doing that. But not if I just did that last session; I want to surprise my friends, not bore them.) So I'm not going to intentionally gimp myself and my companions for the pointless exercise of remaining in-character.

I can hear the howls of protest: "staying in-character is not pointless! it's ROLE-PLAYING!". I beg to differ. It's one aspect of roleplaying, and as I've said before not a particular interesting one. Sure, it adds a component of "challenge" to roleplaying, in the sense that it would be a challenge to only ever use your off-hand to roll the dice, but one that doesn't really add much to the narrative richness. It's purely an exercise in...discipline?

Oh, "immersion."

Yeah, I just don't buy that. I don't believe that form of immersion exists in RPGs, not when you're still rolling dice and speaking out-of-character and drinking caffeine and everything else that goes on at the table. It's not immersion, it's adherence to the artificially imposed requirement of staying in-character.

Immersion is what happens when you feel the same emotions as your character. And since you, the player, know there's probably going to be undead, or that you need fire to kill trolls, or that the 13-year old playing the rogue is going to screw over the party yet again, then you are simply not immersed when you pretend otherwise.

 

[cmad1977]

... Actually, though, I want to point out: Discussions like this can be really fun if they're approached as "I'd like to talk about what we do, and hear what other people do". They are a lot less fun when approached as "that sounds really unfun and I wouldn't do it".

That sounds unfun. I wouldn't want to discuss things at your table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guest 6801328]

What kind of players prepare for a lightning strike on a clear day?

Those who are going someplace where if there *is* lightning and they aren't prepared they will be well and truly screwed.

Like alpine climbers. Minimize metal gear. Bring some cheap hardware you can leave behind if you have to rap off. Prussiks in case that goes awry. Rain shell.

Oh, wait, not so different from adventurers going into catacombs.