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

[Imaculata]

It's when they don't self-limit like that - going back to the trap example again but let's change it up a bit (water is too easily beaten in 5e ): make it a trap where the away scout falls 30' into a pit of acid; the players know this but the characters do not and can not. Party happen to have a scroll of Protection From Acid on board - one-shot, gives everyone within 10' acid immunity for half an hour. While searching for the scout they reach a pristine hallway and don't (or can't) for whatever reason notice the trap. Do eyebrows go up if only now does the party use the scroll, even though there may still be half the adventure left or more?

So let me get this straight... the party splits up, and one character falls into a trap that the other characters have not noticed yet. Should they be allowed to act upon this knowledge as players?

Well to me, the answer to this would be to simply not put them into this situation in the first place. I would give the other players a clear clue that warns their characters of the trap, so they don't make the same mistake, and don't have to fake ignorance. Because I like it when there is not a huge mismatch between player and character knowledge. Avoid the situation entirely. Someone has already fallen into the trap, so reveal it to the other players clear as day.

As for the underwater adventure question: while it's quite true that the 5e version of Water Breathing allows for ongoing underwater adventures* (which is just fine; kinda cool in fact) I still maintain it's a bit broken the rest of the time as by in effect being permanent it outright neutralizes what might otherwise be a legitimate obstacle and sometimes hazard. It also kinda ruins maritime ship-board campaigns or adventures as perhaps the biggest ongoing hazard there is somehow going overboard. Can't swim? Who cares, you can't drown either.

This is my biggest issue with it as well. Of course since I am currently running a ship-board campaign, this sort of thing is a lot on my mind. One of the biggest threats in my campaign, is water. And I want to keep it that way, which is why I'm also keeping any magical items out of the campaign that would completely negate the threat of water.

A Druid shapeshifting into a marine animal is fine, because then his class ability is offering him a means to deal with the obstacle. That is the key element in my opinion: I want my players to interact with the water. I want it to inform some of their decisions. If they feel the need to reserve a spell slot, bring special items, buy a boat, or use some sort of special ability to deal with it, that is perfectly fine. But I don't want a spell that permanently makes water irrelevant for the entire party, and for anyone they bring along.

I want my players to wander into a dungeon, encounter a flooded tunnel, and ask their mage: "Did you remember to bring water breathing?", instead of the mage saying: "Pffft! My waterbreathing spell is still active on the whole party for the entire day, and when it ends, I simply cast it again. Just assume that it is always active."

 

[Imaculata]

No, it's not a design flaw. It's a design strategy that YOU don't like. Your dislike doesn't make it a flaw. Lots of people really enjoy finding out hidden secrets. That strategy is for them, not you. It's pretty arrogant for you to call their fun a design flaw.

When it comes to secret tunnels and secret treasures, I think it is a mistake to make these things mandatory, and that is I think what he was getting at. I always make secrets optional. Because what if the players don't find the secret?

If a campaign revolves around uncovering a mystery/secret, and one of the players already knows what the mystery/secret is, and acts upon it, I would say that's a mistake of either the player or the DM.

I've ran a Call of Cthulhu campaign with the same player twice. And because he already knew some of the secrets, I made an agreement with him to keep those secrets to himself, and to feel free to deliberately make other choices than he did the first time, to discover new things. I also made sure to mix up some of the twists, so there were some surprises for him too, like having one of the main villains switch sides.

One of the things you quickly learn when you write a campaign that revolves around uncovering a mystery, is that you want to spread out a lot of clues that steer the players towards the same plot point. You don't want players to get stuck. And just to make sure that the players couldn't hit a dead end in their investigation, I added a time table of events, that would trigger crucial clues/events on specific days, to push the plot forward, regardless of what the players had discovered up to that point.

 

[Lanefan]

So let me get this straight... the party splits up, and one character falls into a trap that the other characters have not noticed yet. Should they be allowed to act upon this knowledge as players?

My answer would be a flat "no". That said...

Well to me, the answer to this would be to simply not put them into this situation in the first place.

...this is absolutely right. As DM it's my place to ensure that if a character goes off on a solo scout the only person who learns what the character finds is that character's player. Which means either it all gets done by note, or - if that gets too cumbersome - I take the player to another room and sort it out, preferably quickly. If, however, the player and I go ahead and role-play it all out in front of the other players...

I would give the other players a clear clue that warns their characters of the trap, so they don't make the same mistake, and don't have to fake ignorance. Because I like it when there is not a huge mismatch between player and character knowledge. Avoid the situation entirely. Someone has already fallen into the trap, so reveal it to the other players clear as day.

...then I've foolishly backed myself into a corner and something like this is one of very few ways out of it.

========= two, two, two discussions in one =============

This is my biggest issue with it as well. Of course since I am currently running a ship-board campaign, this sort of thing is a lot on my mind. One of the biggest threats in my campaign, is water. And I want to keep it that way, which is why I'm also keeping any magical items out of the campaign that would completely negate the threat of water.

A Druid shapeshifting into a marine animal is fine, because then his class ability is offering him a means to deal with the obstacle. That is the key element in my opinion: I want my players to interact with the water. I want it to inform some of their decisions. If they feel the need to reserve a spell slot, bring special items, buy a boat, or use some sort of special ability to deal with it, that is perfectly fine. But I don't want a spell that permanently makes water irrelevant for the entire party, and for anyone they bring along.

I want my players to wander into a dungeon, encounter a flooded tunnel, and ask their mage: "Did you remember to bring water breathing?", instead of the mage saying: "Pffft! My waterbreathing spell is still active on the whole party for the entire day, and when it ends, I simply cast it again. Just assume that it is always active."

Two goals:

1. the ability to run full-time underwater adventures, and
2. the ability for water to remain as an obstacle or hazard for day-to-day adventuring

require two solutions:

1. a new item or items that give ongoing water breathing to whoever has them - the party are provided these either as gifts or on loan before setting out, and
2. a harsh cut-back on the Water Breathing spell - make it a spell not a ritual, cut the duration to 15 minutes per caster level, can affect your level's worth of targets which must include caster

Howzat?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

When it comes to secret tunnels and secret treasures, I think it is a mistake to make these things mandatory, and that is I think what he was getting at. I always make secrets optional. Because what if the players don't find the secret?

Then they don't find it. And life goes on, though perhaps somewhat differently than if they had found it.

If a campaign revolves around uncovering a mystery/secret, and one of the players already knows what the mystery/secret is, and acts upon it, I would say that's a mistake of either the player or the DM.

Or both, yes; on this I agree. The final choice whether to (attempt to) act on it or not, however, rests with the player(s); all the DM is left with at that point is to say "you can't do that", and possibly light a powderkeg.

One of the things you quickly learn when you write a campaign that revolves around uncovering a mystery, is that you want to spread out a lot of clues that steer the players towards the same plot point. You don't want players to get stuck. And just to make sure that the players couldn't hit a dead end in their investigation, I added a time table of events, that would trigger crucial clues/events on specific days, to push the plot forward, regardless of what the players had discovered up to that point.

I know my players well enough to realize that nothing is predictable - one adventure could be the most convoluted mystery possible and they'd straight-arrow right to the solution, while the next adventure's solution might be behind a secret door that I could put a neon sign pointing to and they'd still miss it.

But that said, I don't mind them not being able to solve something or find something if that's how it ends up going. Mission failure is always an option.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

double post - nothing to see here unless you like reruns, in which case please see previous post.

 

[Imaculata]

Two goals:

1. the ability to run full-time underwater adventures, and
2. the ability for water to remain as an obstacle or hazard for day-to-day adventuring

require two solutions:

1. a new item or items that give ongoing water breathing to whoever has them - the party are provided these either as gifts or on loan before setting out, and
2. a harsh cut-back on the Water Breathing spell - make it a spell not a ritual, cut the duration to 15 minutes per caster level, can affect your level's worth of targets which must include caster

Howzat?

One of the ways I solved the first issue, is by adding diving suits and diving bells to my campaign. Both are very expensive, which fits with the idea of a pirate campaign in which the players often acquire a lot of wealth, and need gold sinks.

But there is always a trade off. Diving suits operate in a limited area, because they require air and pressure from topside through a hose. And they require the players to take off their normal armor, in exchange for what is basically leather armor. You're not very mobile in a heavy diving suit either. So you are definitely a lot more vulnerable while on a deep sea adventure, and it requires heavy investments too.

Diving bells allow multiple players to descend to great depths, and if they have diving suits as well, they can connect their air supply to the diving bell. But of course you're not very mobile inside a tiny diving bell, and it operates in a small area. The alternative is the much more expensive bathysphere, which can move, but isn't very mobile either, and it won't offer a lot of protection against a kraken.

As you can probably tell, this still makes water very intimidating. It is not to be taken lightly.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, it's not a design flaw. It's a design strategy that YOU don't like. Your dislike doesn't make it a flaw. Lots of people really enjoy finding out hidden secrets. That strategy is for them, not you. It's pretty arrogant for you to call their fun a design flaw.

Oh, Max.

I'm going to try to explain this exactly one time. If you choose to not understand that's up to you. I've gone down this rat-hole too many times before with you.

Secrets are great. Finding out secrets are great. Games should have lots of secrets.

But secrets are vulnerable to both being revealed too easily (including by people who know them) and of not being discovered at all. Therefore if the plot of an adventure is overly dependent upon one secret...both in it remaining secret long enough, and being discovered in time...the adventure itself is too vulnerable to being spoiled.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This post made me think about adventures I've run where there was a secret.

In this scenario, the players were searching for the baron's missing niece. They knew that her fiance (whom they had recently killed) was secretly a necromancer. They thought that she was missing because the necromancers had done something horrible to her. When the found her, and discovered that in fact she was part of the necromantic conspiracy, they got quite a shock.

If it had somehow come out earlier that she was a necromancer I probably would have looked for some other way to deliver payoff. But I did like how this played out.

So the adventure did not rely on that secret. It added an extra dimension of fun, which was great, but if for some reason the secret didn't work out the adventure still would have worked.

Sounds right.

 

[Guest 6801328]

From only reading the OP, it could be a thing with the other players thinking you take up too much spotlight time doing a bunch of solo stuff and adding details to every interaction you have (waitress, old man etc.). Other players get bored if someone goes deep solo every chance they get, and maybe become vindictive.

In my experiences playing with strangers, this happens too frequently. Usually it's a rogue.

 

[pemerton]

But secrets are vulnerable to both being revealed too easily (including by people who know them) and of not being discovered at all. Therefore if the plot of an adventure is overly dependent upon one secret...both in it remaining secret long enough, and being discovered in time...the adventure itself is too vulnerable to being spoiled.

So the adventure did not rely on that secret. It added an extra dimension of fun, which was great, but if for some reason the secret didn't work out the adventure still would have worked.

Sounds right.

A lot of weight seems to be being carried by notions like plot of the adventure, the adventure still working, etc.

You seem to be talking about a framework of play in which "the plot", "the adventure" is written in advance by the GM (or the module author).

Outside of that framework, I don't think there is any problem with having an adventure rely on a secret. For instance, if it's not pre-written then there is no danger of anyone discovering the secret in advance.