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

[Guest 6801328]

By "secrets" you mean, I assume, things that once were somewhat secret but are now well known among gamers e.g. troll-and-fire. Because every adventure in one way or another depends on secrets - be it secret information, or secret rooms, or secret effects, or secret items, etc. - and by no means are all of them design flaws.

Actually, I would argue that if the excitement of adventure depends on the secret being secret and the completion of the adventure depends on discovery of the secret then, yes, it's a design flaw. Think through that. If the fun of the adventure depends on the absence of some information, and discovering that information is what makes resolution possible, what happens if the players never discover the information? Do you give it to them? Is the adventure designed such that discovering the information is inevitable? If so, why is it fun (or challenging) to get it?

Take the secret door: what happens if the heroes never discover it? That's why it's wise for secret doors to be optional: a short-cut that makes it possible to bypass dangers, or some treasure that players will like but isn't required, etc.

Or how about the BBEG's weakness: can the BBEG can't be defeated without the secret? If so, it's not strictly necessary to the adventure, so it's ok if the heroes never discover it. But if not, then what do you do if the heroes never uncover the secret?

Thus, although any adventure will have lots of secrets (what's behind this door? whose side is his NPC on? what does this wand do?) I believe it is a mistake to make any one secret pivotal to a whole adventure. Consequently, if a player with privileged knowledge "gives away" one of the secrets, for whatever reason, the impact should be limited. It's a kind of compartmentalization.

 

[Lanefan]

Actually, I would argue that if the excitement of adventure depends on the secret being secret and the completion of the adventure depends on discovery of the secret then, yes, it's a design flaw. Think through that. If the fun of the adventure depends on the absence of some information, and discovering that information is what makes resolution possible, what happens if the players never discover the information?

Then it remains unresolved, and who knows: there might be consequences...maybe later on they'll realize (or be told) in-character they missed something and need to go back. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened. (and as DM I thus get two adventures for the price of one...what's not to like about that?)

Do you give it to them?

Usually, no.

Is the adventure designed such that discovering the information is inevitable? If so, why is it fun (or challenging) to get it?

Sometimes the fun (or challenge) is the journey, not the destination.

Take the secret door: what happens if the heroes never discover it?

First off, "heroes" might be a mis-label as my games aren't exactly heroic in style.

That said, if the party miss something, they miss it. ::shrug:: No skin off my nose.

In my experience parties almost always miss something in any given adventure, reasons for which vary all over the place. Sometimes what's missed is relevant, sometimes not.

Or how about the BBEG's weakness: can the BBEG can't be defeated without the secret? If so, it's not strictly necessary to the adventure, so it's ok if the heroes never discover it. But if not, then what do you do if the heroes never uncover the secret?

Then the BBEG's probably going to live to fight another day. Party will too, if they're wise enough to run.

Thus, although any adventure will have lots of secrets (what's behind this door? whose side is his NPC on? what does this wand do?) I believe it is a mistake to make any one secret pivotal to a whole adventure. Consequently, if a player with privileged knowledge "gives away" one of the secrets, for whatever reason, the impact should be limited. It's a kind of compartmentalization.

Fair enough, though I perhaps don't see it being as much of a flaw as you do.

Lan-"secret agent man"-efan

 

[Killsteeler]

Im looking for some players to join my group would anyone wish to join?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then it remains unresolved, and who knows: there might be consequences...maybe later on they'll realize (or be told) in-character they missed something and need to go back. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened. (and as DM I thus get two adventures for the price of one...what's not to like about that?)

Usually, no.

Sometimes the fun (or challenge) is the journey, not the destination.

First off, "heroes" might be a mis-label as my games aren't exactly heroic in style.

That said, if the party miss something, they miss it. ::shrug:: No skin off my nose.

In my experience parties almost always miss something in any given adventure, reasons for which vary all over the place. Sometimes what's missed is relevant, sometimes not.

Then the BBEG's probably going to live to fight another day. Party will too, if they're wise enough to run.

Fair enough, though I perhaps don't see it being as much of a flaw as you do.

Lan-"secret agent man"-efan

Ok, we're not disagreeing. I'm gathering from the above that you think a "successful" adventure should never hinge on the discovery of a secret.

In which case, getting back to the point of this thread, if a secret is prematurely revealed it might be disappointing but it won't gut the adventure.

EDIT: Heroes in the sense of being the focus of the story. Which, admittedly, also doesn't have to be the case in an RPG.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, we're not disagreeing. I'm gathering from the above that you think a "successful" adventure should never hinge on the discovery of a secret.

Well, it's more that I think an adventure doesn't always have to be "successful". Mission failure is an option very much in play.

Now, a good fun time can still be had in an "unsuccessful" adventure where they simply flat-out don't achieve what they set out to do (in this case, because they missed the secret - be it a hidden item, a secret chamber, a piece of information, whatever).

In which case, getting back to the point of this thread, if a secret is prematurely revealed it might be disappointing but it won't gut the adventure.

Situationally dependent. If it's something as simple as "trolls v fire" then ::shrug:: whatever - enjoyment lessened perhaps but adventure not gutted. But if it's the fact that the local Baron is secretly a vampire and the party's adventure goal* is to learn this, then a player overhearing me-as-DM tell this to a friend and then telling the table at the next session...yeah, adventure gutted.

* - a goal they might not even realize going in: their stated mission is to explore some ruins but the story intent is that in the process they'll stumble onto clear evidence connecting the Baron to vampirism...so here even the goal itself is a secret.

Lanefan

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, it's more that I think an adventure doesn't always have to be "successful". Mission failure is an option very much in play.

Now, a good fun time can still be had in an "unsuccessful" adventure where they simply flat-out don't achieve what they set out to do (in this case, because they missed the secret - be it a hidden item, a secret chamber, a piece of information, whatever).

Situationally dependent. If it's something as simple as "trolls v fire" then ::shrug:: whatever - enjoyment lessened perhaps but adventure not gutted. But if it's the fact that the local Baron is secretly a vampire and the party's adventure goal* is to learn this, then a player overhearing me-as-DM tell this to a friend and then telling the table at the next session...yeah, adventure gutted.

* - a goal they might not even realize going in: their stated mission is to explore some ruins but the story intent is that in the process they'll stumble onto clear evidence connecting the Baron to vampirism...so here even the goal itself is a secret.

Lanefan

In the example of the Baron Vampire, my take is that if the "secret" is non-obvious then it must mean there are other possible truths that would fit with the evidence. Thus, if one player blurts out "oh, yeah, I've played this adventure...the Baron is a vampire" it should be possible for the DM to simply choose one of the other possible truths, rendering that player's statement incorrect and (eventually) surprising the trusting players at the same time. If that's *not* possible then I have to wonder if it was a very well designed secret.

Does that make sense? If there's no other conclusion that fits the evidence, then the Baron's vampirism isn't going to be a very exciting reveal.

EDIT: I'm not arguing that players should feel free to spoil surprises for other people, just that "secrets" should only be accessories to adventure, and not the core premise of adventures.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The other players, 4 out of 5, including me have never played D&D before. Only me and another guy are avid RPG fans. The other two have never played an rpg in their life, actually one of them constantly tries to cheat with the die and have free rerolls etc etc... The other one just sits during the whole session and joins in battles. He is not a problem at all.
Now on the playstyle, we do have a difference of opinion as to how the game should be played. The guy that tries cheating has told us that he doesn't like "talking" he just likes the fights (He made an evil Paladin that wants to be Heisenberg by making drugs). In fact, during the last session he betrayed us to someone and I forced his tongue (I literaly exploited his inability to roleplay) and we are mid-fighting. I pretty much enjoyed that.

So the rest of your post simply describes the sort of gram this grouper interested in playing. While an established DM sets the tone and the table rules, the table still has to agree to play by those rules.

Personally, I don't think you're going to find much of the type of game that you want to play with this particular group. I'm not saying you should leave, but you do have to set your expectations appropriately. It's not because they are new players, btw. I love bringing new players into my group because we enjoy our style of play, and it gives us an opportunity to teach them how to play with our style of play. I find that new players are often the best at staying in character, simply because they don't get hung up on the rules yet. My preference is still an AD&D-style approach where they haven't read the PHB, and we help them build the character. Once we're in session, they tell us what they want to do, and we tell them how (the rules) they do it. Players who read the rules first tend to self-limit themselves so they don't make a mistake in regards to the rules.

If you want the game to be more focused on the characters and role-playing, then the DM needs to be on the same page, and they need to set that expectation and tone. And if it starts to deviate, then they have to enforce it. The problem is, this is not only unlikely with a group of friends that have decided they all want to learn to play D&D together, but it's very hard to do since everybody probably has different ideas of what playing D&D is.

In my experience, should time permit, I would recommend you alter your expectations to try a more casual approach with this group, and either start or join a group that is more interested in the style you'd like to play.

As far as cheating - if the DM (or the group as a whole) allows it, it's not cheating. I would consider it uncool, but it's up to the DM or group to say "no."

The one that just sits and joins battles is also not helping your desire to have a more character driven game. He may not be as actively inhibiting it, but he's also not enabling it.

 

[Maxperson]

At the same time, if the fun of an adventure depends on secrets, that's a design flaw. Why design something that's susceptible to an honest mistake? "Oops...sorry; I thought everybody knew that. Guess there's no point finishing."

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.

 

[pemerton]

I would argue that if the excitement of adventure depends on the secret being secret and the completion of the adventure depends on discovery of the secret then, yes, it's a design flaw.

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.

 

[Ricochet]

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.

Different players enjoy different styles of play, and it seems you are quite far off from what the other players enjoy (like murdering people in taverns).

Either that, or they are all a bunch of jerks OR people who see the game as a fun outlet for some wackyness and getting each others characters into crummy situations.