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

[Guest 6801328]

Probably something quite different than we would do with a fictional character in a RPG. In a movie or novel there's only one creative agency (the writer(s)) where in a typical RPG there's a bunch of not-always-in-agreement creative agencies: the DM creates the world and backstory, the players create some key personalities that inhabit said world, and the story of the actions of said personalities (i.e. what gets played out in the game) is created by all involved. Sometimes these creative agencies might conflict - a player claims his character is the son of the King while the DM has already determined the King has no heirs - and in cases like this the DM takes precedence.

Or, coincidence. A movie or novel might be well served by having the protagonator just happen to know exactly what to do when (though even here if it's blatant enough to be noticeable it bugs me), just to keep the story going toward its predetermined end point. But a RPG is not well served by this at all - for one thing, it doesn't (or certainly shouldn't) have a predetermined end point - and a character not knowing about the trap even though its player does can be just as contributory to keeping the story going.

On re-reading, the above may not be all that clear...if needed I can expand on it later.

Please do. I agree that some of the mechanics of how an RPG story gets woven is different from how a book or movie script gets written, but good storytelling is good storytelling, no?

We constrain ourselves to what our characters would most likely do with the knowledge they have.

Why does it have to be "most likely"? (And what does that even mean?) Shouldn't it be "most interesting thing they could plausibly do"?

What's to say the story isn't just as compelling, or even more so, without the artificially-induced coincidences? Maybe the old lady catches everyone in her trap; the story then becomes how to escape (see AD&D module A4 for a published example of one of these) - still a good story, only different and (and this is the key element) perhaps not as advantageous or friendly or easy for the characters...and by extension, their players.

Oh, sure, the player's decision might screw up a plan that the DM had and therefore might not lead to the best story. But we have to at least trust that everybody...players and DM...are trying to weave the best story they can.

Unfortunately, my rather lengthy experience tells me that he's mostly got it right.

In an ideal world I'd get right behind this. But it's not an ideal world, and there's just too many people out there who subscribe to the maxim "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'".

And maybe that's the key difference between the two viewpoints here: our assumptions about the other people at the table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is why your chosen definition for the term "metagaming" is meaningless.

You've just decided that a particular bit of knowledge that the player has must influence that player's character's actions.

Because if I explain the personality and attitude of my character and how that means he would do what I want him to do, it is "metagaming disguised as roleplaying" because you say I am choosing that action because I know what I know.

And if I, knowing what I know, choose a course of action for the character that is specifically not the above action - while I could have chosen the above action, had you not provided me some piece of information - then I am still "metagaming", unless your definition for the term isn't "using what I know, rather than what the character knows, to choose my character's actions." because I would not be avoiding that particular action if I didn't know what I know.

So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you....

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you....

I find the comparison humorous, even if it is meant to be a dig at my argument.

 

[Maxperson]

It's just you setting the stage for others to engage in behavior you don't like, even though you could remove the possibility outright.

Here's the thing. If I did this, I would also have to take away the players' dice and character sheets. Allowing them to keep their dice sets the stage for them to give me false numbers when they roll. Letting them keep their character sheets sets the stage for them to alter their numbers and items inappropriately. Those things are no different from metagaming. Cheating is cheating. If I'm responsible for one(and I'm not), then I'm responsible for them all and I have to remove all of it or else I'm being a hypocrite.

This is why I think it has to do with identity and ideological purity. "Our group doesn't 'metagame.' That's something other groups, the bad roleplayers do." Hence the resistance to changing methods or even acknowledging that they would alleviate the very problem in the first place. (Or maybe you did acknowledge it but I missed it.) It's like some need the possibility of "metagaming" to exist in their games, otherwise they couldn't identify as someone who is against it.

I don't care what you do in your game, though. Metagaming is cheating unless the DM rules otherwise. If he does rule otherwise, it's not cheating and is fine.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...the PC does something it otherwise would (almost) never do.

That is both impossible to know, and irrelevant.

Problem is, people are jumping on that "almost" - the <0.1% chance that the PC would just happen to think that the kind old lady in the woods eats adventurers and small children for supper - and using it to justify all sorts of shenanigans just because the PC's player knows she ate the party's rogue last night. And that's wrong.

That "<0.1% chance" is not an accurate figure. A character might believe every old lady living alone in the woods is a baby-eating hag until proven otherwise, so it's actually a 100% chance the PC would "just happen to think that".

You, and others focusing on assuming ill-intent and misuse of knowledge, seem to be ignoring that we don't actually know anything about the character and how they think until we see what they do about a situation - so there is no actual evidence to the contrary (no "your character wouldn't think that!"), just the evidence of what they are actually doing (yes "my character thinks this").

 

[Maxperson]

Anyway, it should be pretty obvious that this specific scenario was meant as a parody. And true parodies (as opposed to simple ridicule) are meant to illustrate a truth. Tthe 'truth' in this case, which is illustrated by Aaron's two examples, is that your policing of metagaming absolutely requires you to make subjective judgments about the inner thoughts of your players. You are responding to your perceptions of player motivation, instead of simply to the actions they declare for their characters. And sometimes you will be wrong.

I don't police my behavior. There's no need to police adults who don't metagame.

But contemplate this: once information is known, the decision to not act on it as much an instance of the sort of metagaming you so despise as is the decision to act on it.

Got that? Inaction is as much 'metagaming' as action.

No. I reject that altered definition. Metagaming is bringing out of character knowledge into the game by acting on it. If the PC doesn't act on it, it's not metagaming. A failure of the PC to act on knowledge it doesn't have can never be metagaming.

If I know there's a secret door, and thus I don't tell the DM I'm searching for secret doors, I am metagaming. Because if I didn't know anything I might have decided to search for secret doors in that spot. There's literally no way to avoid metagaming. I cannot truly be 'in character' because I have information my character doesn't.

What you clearly don't get is that if there is an in game justification for searching there, you still can. Your example is fatally flawed.

Your solution at that point is to dictate what 'being in character' means. "Your character would do X." And you seem to be defining 'X' exclusively as "something that doesn't benefit your character." Which is fine, if that's what you like. But that's not better roleplaying, or morally superior, or anything else. That's just how you prefer to play.

Okay.

Here's another hypothetical scenario in which I'd love to know what you'd do: let's say one of your players has already run through an adventure, and you let him participate as long as he doesn't "metagame". The party gets to a point where there's a trap, but for whatever reasons nobody has moved to that spot. So the player who knows about the trap thinks the game would be more exciting if somebody triggered the trap and decides to "take one for the team": he describes a completely plausible reason why he would move to where the trap is, and he falls in. EDIT: Oh, and none of the other players know that he has run this adventure before. Only the DM knows.

Do you allow it?

I wouldn't run an adventure I know someone has gone through already. I don't like to bore my players.

 

[Maxperson]

Fixed it for you (in bold).

Yes. Metagaming in games where it is not allowed is playing in bad faith. I totally agree!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I find the comparison humorous, even if it is meant to be a dig at my argument.

It's not meant as that at all. That scene just popped into my head reading your comment.

I don't consider all metagaming to be bad. Certainly not something as minor as your example with the flaming log.

It could be that I just don't mind a degree of player authorship in my game, or it could be that there is always a degree of metagaming that goes on, or it could be that avoiding metagaming could sometimes be less fun that allowing it to occur.

It could be any of those...but most likely it's a mix of all three. And likely some other reasons, too.

 

[Maxperson]

LOL. This in itself is a form of "metagaming".

No. No it isn't. No out of game knowledge is being acted on in the game world.

If you give rewards to playing with character knowledge, whether it's inspiration or a better magic item or even just compliments at the table then you aren't eliminating "metagaming".

A magic item would be metagaming, since out of game knowledge is being acted on in the game world by me, but since I don't ever do that... The other two examples literally cannot be metagaming since inspiration and exp are out of game mechanics, not in game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Metagaming is bringing out of character knowledge into the game by acting on it.

I would say "No. I reject that altered definition." for the humorous tone it has... but, I think you actually don't realize something.

If a player knows [blank] and [blank] figures into their decision process, such as by the player thinking "I must do something that is not [blank]", then they have in fact brought that knowledge into the game because they have in fact acting on that knowledge.

"That's a wraith! My character has no idea his sword won't work great on it, so I better make at least the one sword attack so I'm not a 'cheater'" is as much a choice made because of what the player knows as "That's a wraith! My character has no idea his sword won't work great on it, but it does seem clearly undead, so I'll throw holy water at it" is.

It's like that old Rush song says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

What you clearly don't get is that if there is an in game justification for searching there, you still can. Your example is fatally flawed.

I think the example was actually quite telling, because plenty of the things you have labeled as "metagaming" also have an in game justification. It's just that you reject that justification as "cover" and insist the player is still "metagaming".

I don't like to bore my players.

Implying other people do like to bore their players is bad faith discussion. And implying that running an adventure someone has gone through already is inherently boring isn't accurate.