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

[Corwin]

I hear what you're saying, but I think your subtle (and well-taken, and well argued!) point is missing the less subtle, and larger point.

The character did not, in fact, "know." You, the player, instructed the DM to make a check. The DM did so, and then imparted the knowledge to you. Once you (the player) had that knowledge, you (the player) created the backstory that would allow you to impart that knowledge to the character.

I think there's a bit of a semantics debate at play between us. Which happens. I'm just saying, in the example campaign I created above, your character knew about trolls throughout the previous week's table play, while you were fighting troglodytes. Before you ever encountered your first troll. In that moment, your character had stories of monsters (including trolls) in his head. He had the whole time you'd been playing him. Everyone around the table, including you the elf's player, just didn't know it.

It seems like the argument being made by some, is that the DM tells the player what knowledge is in his head. Either by permission, or by dice roll. The player is never allowed to decide that for himself. I just don't dig that playstyle. Which isn't me saying it's badwrongfun. Just that it's not my bag, man.

 

[Shasarak]

The DM can (or certanly should be able to) veto anything if a character is played as knowing something it reasonably can't know.

If it's something the character might have heard of, roll some dice.

Lanefan

Why would I need to roll some dice for my character to do something? That would certainly break my deep immersion as my character if I had to stop and roll dice all the time. Why not just do it the old fashioned way of declaring actions and then allowing the DM to narrate results?

 

[Shasarak]

Player: Based on my time as a sage, I try to recall what I know about the weaknesses of trolls.
DM: Let's see an Intelligence ability check.
Player: A got a 3.
DM: A troll has a horrific appetite and eat anything they can catch and devour. Their wounds close quickly and can even reattach dismembered body parts. You are unable to recall any weaknesses.
Player: I throw a flask of alchemist fire on it to see what happens!

You're the DM and this is a veteran player - how do you adjudicate the player's action declaration?

DM: Ok, make an attack roll.

 

[iserith]

It seems like the argument being made by some, is that the DM tells the player what knowledge is in his head. Either by permission, or by dice roll. The player is never allowed to decide that for himself. I just don't dig that playstyle. Which isn't me saying it's badwrongfun. Just that it's not my bag, man.

I have no desire as DM for that much control. I'm already dominating two thirds of the conversation of the game, get to decide the outcome of every action declaration, and the players only have the context I give them via describing the environment to act. I really don't need to add to that the invalidation by fiat of certain action declarations just because I've decided they don't know something.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaculata]

"There is no rule..." is a commonly used preface to excuses as to why it's ok to break Wheaton's Law. It is entirely axiomatic that a character is played knowing only what they know, and if player knowledge is something that the player wants the character to have, they need GM agreement - whether through a roll against an appropriate skill or a narrative vehicle for where the character might feasibly have picked it up. One does not assume that one's character knows about fire and trolls regeneration, that has to come in-game, or if 'general knowledge' in the gameworld - stated by the GM in advance, or, more usually, agreed after the out-of-character question is asked by the player to the GM.

For the sake of argument, suppose my character knows nothing about trolls, or their weakness. I use my knowledge as a player, and kill it with fire. What happens? How does this affect the game in your opinion?

Using you wits as a player is fine, but using your personal knowledge is ridiculous - otherwise we could all legitimately have our characters know the weakness of every monster that exists

What if we did? What would happen?

and how to invent gunpowder right off the bat.

Maybe my character does know how to make gunpowder? That doesn't have to be far fetched at all. I'm currently running a pirate campaign with firearms. If one of my players want to, it's fine for him to attempt to make gunpowder.

The whole idea of there being some amount of metagaming that works, but beyond which is 'too much' falls down if taken to it's logical conclusion.

I try not to think about it at all. I just don't worry about it.

I said if you CANNOT play without metagaming then you need help, and if you CHOOSE to do so, then you are everything else I said.

I don't agree with that either. Especially considering how wide the definition of 'metagaming' seems to be in this thread. I don't judge my players for playing smart. And on one occasion I have even encouraged my players to bring what ever spells they think their characters might need.

How the GM ISN'T the person who decides what a character can reasonably know is beyond me - if it isn't them, are you really suggesting it is the player

Yes.

and the GM has no say in it...

No, he does have some say in it.

how would THAT work in practice? You haven't thought that one through...

Apparently I have. I think both can decide what a character knows, but it is mostly the player I think. It's their character.

For the player to assume they know all the powers of a Mind Flayer, or which spell is most effective against the saves of a Demon when their character had no way of knowing it beforehand is flat out metagame cheating. The way to get that knowledge legitimately in-game is to research, talk to the right NPCs or for the character to find out themselves, not to be 'given' the edge they need out of nowhere by the player and forcing the GM to intercede or accept it, and letting the challenge in the game turn into a faceroll.

What edge are we talking about here exactly? Lets assume for the sake of argument that I allowed all my players to look at the stats of any monster during combat, and see what their weakness and special powers are. What would happen?

 

[SilentRave]

I'm right here actually. I really have a busy schedule and honestly didn't think people would be so responsive . I lost track of the comments and I really couldn't follow hahaha.

 

[SilentRave]

That's cool man. I actually did that today and it kinda worked!

 

[BookBarbarian]

That's cool man. I actually did that today and it kinda worked!

Are you replying to individual responses in this thread? When i do that I like to use the "Reply With Quote" option so it's clear who i am talking to.

 

[FrogReaver]

...


I reward playing with character knowledge, even if at times it is a detriment to their characters. Especially at those times. That's the best sort of roleplay in my opinion.

LOL. This in itself is a form of "metagaming". 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". You are attempting to use a different form of "metagaming" to push aside the kind of "metagaming" you don't want.

It's kind of ironic and funny when you finally realize this...