D&D 5E Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Can you reference the page of the sidebar that says a DM shouldn't metagame?

Even if it does say that in the book somewhere... that doesn't solve the problem that the DM refusing to use higher AC enemies while someone has a particular feat is metagaming, and has tricked themself into thinking they aren't.

 

[wedgeski]

Even if it does say that in the book somewhere... that doesn't solve the problem that the DM refusing to use higher AC enemies while someone has a particular feat is metagaming, and has tricked themself into thinking they aren't.

It is impossible for a DM *not* to metagame. Metagaming is a *player* vice. Please invent another word for this thing you're describing!

 

[smbakeresq]

It is impossible for a DM *not* to metagame. Metagaming is a *player* vice. Please invent another word for this thing you're describing!

The DM is the metagame. You know the whole plot, every encounter, every special creature, and roll dice in secret. Obviously you don't do things to screw players over, but the BBEG having knowledge (from their spies and informants and encounter survivors) about player abilities and tactics is entirely appropriate.

At higher levels as creatures get divination magic they will know even more, especially as characters gain more levels and fame.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ex ante (before the fact) vice ex post facto (after the fact) is the better way to do it. Ex ante changes are ones done beforehand, often with the intent to drive a theme or play experience. These are generally good, as the players can anticipate the effects and play accordingly. If, however, you're changing the baseline of your campaign because of player build choice, that's ex post facto and reduces the expected outcome of player choices in a way that the player cannot predict. IE, if you adopt selecting higher ACs in general to offset the player choice of SS which makes lower ACs less viable, then you've changed the game from the one the player made a choice in to a different game where perhaps a different choice would be better.

Further, by making the change ex post facto, your still doing it for balance reasons, only you're hiding it from yourself. A decision to change the rules to level expected outcome prior to play is far better than a decision that changes the baseline assumptions of the game to control the effects of player choices after those choices are made. Rule wise, at least. So, if you're choosing to outfit humanoids with better armor because the CE SS archer needs a better challenge, that's metagaming ex post facto, and IMO a poor choice. If humanoids start wearing armor because the CE SS archer convinced the party that the humanoid raids on armor shipments wasn't worrisome, that's not ex post facto, that's consequences. There's a difference and it's important. Changes should evolve in the fiction due to player choices in the fiction, not because the mechanical choices mean you feel the need to balance things.

Given that a standard response to complaints that SS is unbalanced is to suggest ex post facto solutions, I think people aren't putting enough thought into it. Upping ACs to offset SS is just like having a bunch of fire resistant critters show up all the time because your mage likes fire spells. Every now and again, as it makes sense in the game, this works well, but as a solution to an issue it's bunk. You shouldn't be in the business of punishing player choices because it's easier than looking at rules tweeks beforehand.

So, if SS is an issue, (and I think it is small one), the better response is to discuss how to make a change before play rather than take the player punishing route of hiding the fact that your correcting the issue by picking more critters with high ACs.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Can you reference the page of the sidebar that says a DM shouldn't metagame?

It says metagaming is bad, but it doesn't call out the DM specifically to avoid it. It does say that you should do what your characters would do, disregarding player knowledge that the characters don't have, and it elsewhere says that the DM is in charge of playing the NPCs. The only consistent reading is that the DM should also avoid using knowledge that their NPCs don't have when deciding what they do.

The ogre can't decide to put on plate armor in order to counter the sharpshooting PC unless the ogre somehow learns of the PC (and the specific danger they pose) and has access to plate armor. And who decides whether the ogre has access to plate armor? It's not as though the current actions of a PC can spontaneously generate an NPC blacksmith who owed the ogre a favor several years before the game started.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Can whomever knows please give bedir the page number of whatever you are referencing?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It is impossible for a DM *not* to metagame. Metagaming is a *player* vice. Please invent another word for this thing you're describing!

Playing the NPCs is one of the primary tasks of the DM, and metagaming is - colloquially speaking - using out-of-game knowledge that the character can't possibly know in order to make in-game decisions. To the extent that the DM is expected to role-play, there's no reason why a DM couldn't commit that same crime. Insisting on different terminology is to create an unnecessary distinction between player characters and non-player characters, where none actually exists; the distinction between PCs and NPCs is not something which affects the basic rules of how-to-role-play in any way.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...can whomever knows please give bedir the page number of whatever you are referencing?

It seems like it has to be page 235 of the DMG, but that text found there about "metagame thinking" has to be stretched pretty far or misunderstood to be relevant, since the DM putting enemies in heavier armor does not need to have the enemies behave as if they know they are in a game (which is how the 5th edition book defines "metagame thinking") to make that decision - they can make the decision to wear heavier armor for a number of in-character reasons, regardless of why the DM is choosing heavier armored enemies.

 

[smbakeresq]

I get your point, but PC meta-game far more then DM's, and its not close. Every PC guide here has dump stats, players follow those and then act like it didn't exist. They have Barbarians in rage using GWF feat making the decision not to use that feat when advantage is cancelled out for one round then using it again, and every veteran player "tells" their PC's exactly what resistances monsters have that the PC has never seen before. Stuff like that all the time.

As far as Ogres in plate armor, sure, in some cases. Every Ogre that works for a fire giant would have it, as would all the trolls they employ, Fire Giants are master forgers. An orc tribe maybe not, but if they raided settlements they would scavage equipment. Players should enjoy creatures in armor, human sized stuff sells for half price, monster stuff I wold give them something for scrap metal.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It seems like it has to be page 235 of the DMG, but that text found there about "metagame thinking" has to be stretched pretty far or misunderstood to be relevant, since the DM putting enemies in heavier armor does not need to have the enemies behave as if they know they are in a game (which is how the 5th edition book defines "metagame thinking") to make that decision - they can make the decision to wear heavier armor for a number of in-character reasons, regardless of why the DM is choosing heavier armored enemies.

The enemies do not think, though. The DM is the enemies. This is hiding the pea. If the enemies are wearing heavier armor because of story reasons, then this is utterly orthogonal to whatever build or capabilities the players choose. EG, it doesn't matter if you have combat monsters or the knitting club, the enemies are making their decisions to wear heavier armor because of some other factor in the fiction. If, however, they wear heavy armor because the players are combat monsters and the DM wishes these enemies to be tougher to offset that, then the decision is being made because the enemies are pieces in a game and the reasoning is for game reasons, whatever other justification you come up with to obscure this.

The other option is that the enemies wear heavier armor as a consequence of player actions, but this should be clearly established in the fiction --eg, the BBEG notes that his last set of minions was easily dispatched and so makes sure the next set is well equipped. But this only functions so long as it makes sense with the resources available and only for those enemies that have prior knowledge. If random encounter X is a bunch of enemies that the players have never seen before and they're all wearing upgraded armor for no particular reason, then it's still metagaming and a problem.

So, you have ex ante -- reasons that exist regardless of player actions; ex post facto -- metagaming a change to the baseline to offset player game choices; and just consequences, where you make changes as consequence for fictional actions. To be honest, most of the suggestions to just pick appropriately ACed enemies to challenge characters are ex post facto that then suggest pulling a thin cover of justification to hide the fact.