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

[Corwin]

No, it's not. There's a difference between pretending to be someone you're not within the game and misrepresenting yourself as a player to the other players. However you pretend in the game, that's not lying.

So, those of you who advocate player knowledge = metagaming/cheating, you tend to see experienced players announce forthcomingly to the table that they *do* know trolls are vulnerable to fire, but that they will not be acting on it? How does this impact the one newbie player who *doesn't* know and now has the surprise ruined by the non-liar experienced players?

I mean, you just said that the players don't lie to each other about knowing the secret. So they must let everyone else at the table know they know. And that, like dutiful non-cheating metagamer, they promise they will not act on that unfair knowledge. Right?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Not exactly. Let's use another example that doesn't involve thought processes. What if the new player beat the BBEG with lucky critical right at the moment needed to save the party from utter destruction. That would be awesome! Now a few months later he says that he really rolled a 3. What bothers us is that it's cheating.

Wait...you just totally changed the context from using out-of-game knowledge to changing a die roll. Two totally different things.

With the example above, it's not the internal thoughts, but rather that the motivation was to cheat the game. Cheating robs the game of meaning and deprives the group of genuine victory or defeat.

Agreed.

But you performed a little rhetorical stunt there. You claim that metagaming is cheating, and now are using an example of actual cheating to show why cheating is bad, "thus proving" (???) that metagaming is bad.

Not buying it.

That's how cheating always works, though. It only really has the negative impact when discovered. It's like a rot under the wood of a healthy looking tree. So long as it's not discovered, we can all admire how beautiful and strong the tree is. If the rot is discovered, it is always bad and often kills the tree. It doesn't matter if the source of the rot are die rolls or internal motivations, rot is rot.

Yeah, that's all very poetic, but again you haven't demonstrated that using player knowledge is categorically cheating. That's your belief, but others disagree, so you can't really take the next step in that logic chain yet.

And, again, I used the example of the lie as a way of demonstrating that it's the intent that bothers us, not the impact of the lie on the game. I'm not suggesting it's ok to lie.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait...you just totally changed the context from using out-of-game knowledge to changing a die roll. Two totally different things.

Different, yet both cheating. What makes these things wrong is that cheating is involved. It's like a die roll is cheating, and doping up to win a bicycle race are both cheating, yet are two totally different things.

Agreed.

But you performed a little rhetorical stunt there. You claim that metagaming is cheating, and now are using an example of actual cheating to show why cheating is bad, "thus proving" (???) that metagaming is bad.

Not buying it.

I'm saying that metagaming by my definition is cheating unless the DM says otherwise. Your own example shows that by revealing, rightly so, that someone who does it without saying anything is going to upset people who find out about it later. There's no reason for anyone to have been upset at the new player who lied if it wasn't cheating. In fact, if it wasn't cheating, the new player wouldn't have lied about it in the first place.

Yeah, that's all very poetic, but again you haven't demonstrated that using player knowledge is categorically cheating. That's your belief, but others disagree, so you can't really take the next step in that logic chain yet.

And, again, I used the example of the lie as a way of demonstrating that it's the intent that bothers us, not the impact of the lie on the game. I'm not suggesting it's ok to lie.

It's not the intent, because if it wasn't cheating there would have been no lie. It was the act of cheating that upsets people.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, those of you who advocate player knowledge = metagaming/cheating, you tend to see experienced players announce forthcomingly to the table that they *do* know trolls are vulnerable to fire, but that they will not be acting on it? How does this impact the one newbie player who *doesn't* know and now has the surprise ruined by the non-liar experienced players?

I mean, you just said that the players don't lie to each other about knowing the secret. So they must let everyone else at the table know they know. And that, like dutiful non-cheating metagamer, they promise they will not act on that unfair knowledge. Right?

Whether or not it's okay to know the adventure and act about it has no bearing on the wrongness of telling the other players you've never played it when you have. This extends to trolls. "I've never heard of a troll, what is it?" and then later, "I totally know about trolls, guys, I just lied to you so you'd think I was awesome when I pulled that log from the fire." This is wrong whether or not you think it's okay for players to know about trolls and fire and have their characters know.

I don't pay much attention to metagaming in my games unless it becomes disruptive. On the other hand, I've also played at hot tables where metagaming was strongly frowned upon. Both playstyles were fun for me -- I can adapt -- but that means I see both sides of this discussion. I disagree with the strong statements of 'but the other way is wrong' on both sides. But neither way excuses lying to the other players about yourself. That is, at the minimum, a faux pas everywhere. Since I game with friends, if you were invited and did that, you'd not only be not invited again, you'd be told in no uncertain terms why. I'm not friends with dishonest people.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Different, yet both cheating. What makes these things wrong is that cheating is involved. It's like a die roll is cheating, and doping up to win a bicycle race are both cheating, yet are two totally different things.



I'm saying that metagaming by my definition is cheating unless the DM says otherwise. Your own example shows that by revealing, rightly so, that someone who does it without saying anything is going to upset people who find out about it later. There's no reason for anyone to have been upset at the new player who lied if it wasn't cheating. In fact, if it wasn't cheating, the new player wouldn't have lied about it in the first place.

It's not the intent, because if it wasn't cheating there would have been no lie. It was the act of cheating that upsets people.

So if I define metagaming as tuba playing, and then make statements about tuba playing and claim they apply equally to metagaming, should I expect you to follow my logic?

That aside, what happens to your argument if there is no lie?

I agree that lying about what you know is, well, lying.

But what if you already know that I know where the secret door is, and I know you know, so that when I say, "Hey I'm going to make a secret door check" it's totally clear I'm not lying.

What's your objection? That it's tuba playing, and you HATE tuba music?

 

[Darkness]

I think we've had more than enough bickering for one thread.

Good night, everybody.