D&D General [Poll] Metagame justifications for in-character behavior

[payn]

Some folks are fine with leaping off tall buildings or swimming in lava because the character can do it and survive. Im a little closer to the sword and sorcery side of the playstyle, so I don't appreciate these things.

 

[Reynard]

You're missing the "it depends" option. This is a question of table culture and it is going to vary from group to group, campaign to campaign, adventure to adventure, and maybe even session to session.

 

[el-remmen]

In my current games I told my players they were free to bring any out-of-game knowledge they think they have to the decisions their characters make, with the caveat that they may not be correct. Has your PC heard that trolls are vulnerable to fire? Maybe those old stories are true but maybe trolls here are actually vulnerable to cold. . . you only find out by trying. Maybe you think trolls are all evil because you read the Monster Manual and that might be accurate, that is until you meet a troll that breaks that mold.

As I have mentioned several times on different threads over the years (and argued a little bit about with other players who feel that "but that's what my character would do" is magic phrase that always divorces character behavior from player behavior/knowledge regardless of the outcome), most character behavior usually feels pretty natural without conflict among the group or the DM objecting, sometimes you need to decide what is the best thing for your character to do in this moment and then figure out the reasoning you need to explain your character doing this in-game.

DM: How do you know to use fire against a troll? You've never faced one.
Player: Uh, I read it in the Monster Manual, but let's say I heard a bard sing a poem about fighting trolls when I was young.
DM: Good enough for me.

On the other hand, if PCs are separated without a way to communicate, I limit how much they can coordinate their characters' actions - for example.

P.S. I voted often.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You're missing the "it depends" option. This is a question of table culture and it is going to vary from group to group, campaign to campaign, adventure to adventure, and maybe even session to session.

Do they need that option though?
They’re asking about a matter of personal opinion, your baseline opinion of how often something should be allowed or not doesn’t actually change from table to table does it not? Say you think metagame influencing is only allowed in goofy palling around with your mates games and no other types of game, even if you only play goofy mates games with metagaming allowed that’s still only the one type of game you think it should be allowed in which would still count as ‘rarely’ in the grand scheme of types of games, or if you believe it should always be used that doesn’t change if you play at a table that disallows it as much as they’re able to.

 

[J.Quondam]

Generally, I don't really expect a player to "justify" their character's actions; that's not really anyone's business but the player's. And tbh, I've only very rarely encountered a player who didn't make some earnest attempt to keep things in-fiction. In other words, the vast majority of the time this is a non-issue.

Off the top of my head, though, the few times I could envision it emerging, it's either some negative circumstance (eg, "cheating" or something); or else in encounters (usually combat) when the players refer to AC, HP, etc, to make their tactical decisions. The former are bad instances of metagaming and probably a violation of the table social contract. The latter ones are fine with me, since they easily can be justified in-world, even if they aren't explicitly for the sake of time or clarity. (Eg, the fighter looks at the armor and movement of the opponent, and instinctively knows what that means; but it's quicker, easier, and clearer in a tactical game to just call it "AC".)

Additionally, to a degree this all depends on the group's expectations, the genre, specific system in use, etc.

So my answer is "Sometimes," because I am a waffle.

 

[Reynard]

Generally, I don't really expect a player to "justify" their character's actions; that's not really anyone's business but the player's. And tbh, I've only very rarely encountered a player who didn't make some earnest attempt to keep things in-fiction. In other words, the vast majority of the time this is a non-issue.

You've never had verteran players pull out the torches and oil the first time their PCs encounter a troll? It happens a lot IME.

Now, the solution is easy: the old stories are all garbled by the telling. Fire and acid actually HEAL trolls.

 

[J.Quondam]

You've never had verteran players pull out the torches and oil the first time their PCs encounter a troll? It happens a lot IME.

SUre that sort of thing happens occasionally, but I've typically avoided this simply by not immediately identifying monsters. I mean, I never say "It's a troll!" unless the party has already encountered trolls or done some research or whatever. The players get a vague description, probably do some checks to identify it, and/or might just charge. Eventually, they say "Oh, trolls!" and proceed with the requisite arson.

A smidgen of "information rationing" at appropriate times -- plus reskinning, statblock changes, and occasional NPC misinformation -- usually seems enough to offset/justify whatever metagaming players apply, imo.

 

[Ondath]

I answered "always", because I subscribe to the Angry GM's view that metagaming is not a problem, but the symptom of a party-dynamics problem at best. Psychologically, we cannot act (convincingly) as if we don't know a thing we actually know (trained acting being an exception that requires a lot of practice). If you see a troll and try not to metagame, you'll still act in a way that's informed by your knowledge of it.

I think it's always healthier to find a justification for your metagame knowledge. Every Ancient Athenian in the Hellenic period knew the answer to the sphinx's riddles, and they all knew how Theseus used a piece of rope to navigate the Labyrinth. It's not unreasonable for a PC to know the troll's weaknesses, or that they should avert the gaze of the basilisk.

When this becomes a problem is that the GM actually constructed a poor encounter that only works if the "hidden feature" of the monster catches the players unawares, or if the players are taking an adversarial tone to the GM. In these occasions, metagaming is actually a symptom of a larger problem, and the solution isn't forcing players to act as if they don't know what they know, but to resolve the social issues in the group.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This poll seems backwards to me: I generally use and see others using in-character justifications for gamey decisions. (For example, writing a backstory to justify a paladin multi-classing as a warlock.)

I do not even understand why someone would need to use a rule to justify roleplaying.

This isn't "using rules to justify roleplay."

This is, "I know Alice the DM loves shocking betrayal plots, so I immediately begin preparing for our new Wizard employer to betray us."

It's purely metagame reasoning (characters do not and cannot know that they have a DM orchestrating things, at least in most games) given as the primary justification for in-character behavior (in this case, being paranoid and Crazy Prepared for betrayal.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I answered "always", because I subscribe to the Angry GM's view that metagaming is not a problem, but the symptom of a party-dynamics problem at best. Psychologically, we cannot act (convincingly) as if we don't know a thing we actually know (trained acting being an exception that requires a lot of practice). If you see a troll and try not to metagame, you'll still act in a way that's informed by your knowledge of it.

I think it's always healthier to find a justification for your metagame knowledge. Every Ancient Athenian in the Hellenic period knew the answer to the sphinx's riddles, and they all knew how Theseus used a piece of rope to navigate the Labyrinth. It's not unreasonable for a PC to know the troll's weaknesses, or that they should avert the gaze of the basilisk.

When this becomes a problem is that the GM actually constructed a poor encounter that only works if the "hidden feature" of the monster catches the players unawares, or if the players are taking an adversarial tone to the GM. In these occasions, metagaming is actually a symptom of a larger problem, and the solution isn't forcing players to act as if they don't know what they know, but to resolve the social issues in the group.

See above: what about situations where it is the player "predicting" things because they happen to know the DM? That's hardly something one can avoid, having narrative preferences is a thing that applies to literally everyone.