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

[Ondath]

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.

Again, I think this is a problem only if the social dynamics are wonky. If the DM's betrayal plot only works when the players walk into it with no preparations, then it seems to me like the DM is just railroading and should write that betrayal plot as a novel. Genre-aware characters are a thing in stories, and a PC getting ready for the sudden but inevitable betrayal could just be that. It might not be the betrayal scenario the DM imagined in their mind, but that's kinda part-and-parcel with what makes TTRPGs work (no plan survives contact with the players etc. etc.).

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not a big fan of using out of character knowledge to gain advantages in combat (or worse: people reading a module to know which dangers lie ahead).
Yet, once in a while, there will be situations where from a strict in character perspective it would make sense for the character to not partake or abandon the adventure, offend a major NPC or similar things that conflict with RPGs being a group activity where everyone should have fun. In those situations, I find it acceptable, even advised, to find in character reasons/excuses based on meta gaming considerations.

Where I say let the major NPC be offended. Let that character sit this adventure out (and, obviously, let the player bring in a replacement if she doesn't already have one on the go). Play the character based on what the character would do, even if it means roleplaying yourself right out of the game...which I've done, once or twice; and let the at-table consequences* sort themselves out later.

* - which ideally should be minimal, assuming everyone is keeping their own feelings and those of their character(s) separate and not taking any of it too seriously.

 

[schneeland]

Where I say let the major NPC be offended...

If everybody on the table, enjoys this playstyle, that's completely fine. Personally, I have found that outside of strict sandbox campaigns, I'm not a fan (in particular because every time I have observed this, it was mostly one player pulling all the spotlight towards themselves at the expense of others in the group).

 

[James Gasik]

After many many years of playing D&D, I've noticed certain trends. For example, what happens any time player characters get on a ship.

The following results are expected:

*Pirates.
*Shipwreck.
*An encounter with aquatic monsters capable of sinking the ship.
*Any combination of these.

EDIT: hit save too fast! Now, knowing this, is it metagaming to have my character be wary about boarding a ship in a D&D game? Of course!

But at the same time, it's also common sense, since if these events happen to me a lot, surely they must happen to other people in the world!

Also, as an aside, does it ever strike people as odd that all sailing vessels are designed like real world ones, despite the existence of Dragon Turtles and Krakens?

 

[Lanefan]

If everybody on the table, enjoys this playstyle, that's completely fine. Personally, I have found that outside of strict sandbox campaigns, I'm not a fan (in particular because every time I have observed this, it was mostly one player pulling all the spotlight towards themselves at the expense of others in the group).

Which is fine; as the way I see it if the players are all truly engaged in the game and excited by what's going on then ideally they're competing for that spotlight like a pack of dogs over a bone. Further, ideally their characters are acting like the individuals they are; which means sometimes they think for themselves and act independently (whether for or against or unrelated to the interests of the party) rather than constantly subsuming their independence to the metagame groupthink.

Far better than a bunch of people just sitting there passively waiting for the spotlight to shine their way, hm?

 

[schneeland]

Far better than a bunch of people just sitting there passively waiting for the spotlight to shine their way, hm?

That's a rather negative way to read what I said, isn't it? But to be explicit: my ideal is cooperatively moving the story forward, which can, in some cases, involve taking an author instead of a character perspective, either individually or in the group.

In any case, it seems likely that we have different ideas of what a good session looks like. Which would probably lead to conflict at the same table, but is otherwise perfectly fine.

 

[Lanefan]

After many many years of playing D&D, I've noticed certain trends. For example, what happens any time player characters get on a ship.

The following results are expected:

*Pirates.
*Shipwreck.
*An encounter with aquatic monsters capable of sinking the ship.
*Any combination of these.

Add becalming and-or getting lost at sea and I think you've pretty much covered it.

Also, as an aside, does it ever strike people as odd that all sailing vessels are designed like real world ones, despite the existence of Dragon Turtles and Krakens?

Not really; in that a ship that could stand up against creatures like this would likely end up too heavy to move at any speed.

Other than that, the only way to beat creatures like these is to outrun them. Some settings have the fast clipper-ship era sail tech available, others don't.

Then again, in the game I play in our PCs recently acquired* a ship that came with two actual cannons on board; along with crew who know how to operate said guns and who we now have under contract to our adventuring company.

* - we can be a bunch of pirates when we want to be; it helps that one Elf PC has a centuries-long backstory as a supposedly-famous pirate that few people have ever heard of.

 

[James Gasik]

Add becalming and-or getting lost at sea and I think you've pretty much covered it.

Not really; in that a ship that could stand up against creatures like this would likely end up too heavy to move at any speed.

Other than that, the only way to beat creatures like these is to outrun them. Some settings have the fast clipper-ship era sail tech available, others don't.

Then again, in the game I play in our PCs recently acquired* a ship that came with two actual cannons on board; along with crew who know how to operate said guns and who we now have under contract to our adventuring company.

* - we can be a bunch of pirates when we want to be; it helps that one Elf PC has a centuries-long backstory as a supposedly-famous pirate that few people have ever heard of.

Well I mean, it just seems like, if a creature can attack the hull of the ship where you can't get at it, and this happens often, then you'd expect shipbuilding to advance in some way to counter this problem.

Instead, it's just like how D&D worlds are littered with medieval castles that are completely useless against flying or burrowing monsters.

 

[Lanefan]

That's a rather negative way to read what I said, isn't it?

Sorry, wasn't in reaction to what you said but instead in reaction to what I've seen myself all too many times over the years.

But to be explicit: my ideal is cooperatively moving the story forward, which can, in some cases, involve taking an author instead of a character perspective, either individually or in the group.

"Moving the story forward" can take many forms, though. If for example you're running through an AP and want to move the story forward toward the end of said AP (which IMO would be a metagame consideration, apropos to the thread), that's one form. If you're just going where the tides take you and letting the story in effect write itself, and thus maybe not even become apparent as a story until looked back at later, that's another form. And so on.

Sometimes the adventure or mission or whatever the party is doing is the story; and afterwards the tales will tell of how the party took down three Frost Giants at once and how near-run a thing it was getting the prince out of captivity before he starved, etc. Cool stuff.

Other times it's merely a backdrop for the conflicts and drama within the party which is or becomes the real story; and afterwards the tales will be of how the ongoing rivalry between Jocantha and Chernousse finally came to a head and how Alchene kept playing pranks on both of them (and how hilarious some of those pranks were!) while whatever the underlying adventure was gets buried in the sands of time. Also cool stuff.

 

[prabe]

"Metagame" is an awfully loaded term, but I guess my feelings are that if you're basing your decisions on your understanding of the rules, that's almost certainly OK--those rules are, after all, how the world works (or how how the world works is represented); if you're basing your decisions on having looked at the published setting or adventure the GM is running, or the GM's notes, that's almost certainly not OK.