D&D 5E DMs: How Do You Handle Metagaming?

Lerysh · Nov 5, 2014

As the player who usually offers the optimal solution, let me just say, it's done for expedience sake. There are some players who just don't want to do the combat. Or they literally ONLY want to roll, not decide. I offer them choices so they can choose quicker, not because I want the optimal solution in every situation. And as a DM I would not want to discourage cooperation between players. While it's up to the player to decide his PCs actions there is no reason to not allow a little tactical discussion at the table.

Nebulous · Nov 5, 2014

Flexor the Mighty! said:
True, and I don't mind when a player takes a second to think about something on his move, but I just dislike it when another player tells him the "optimal solution" despite his PC not being anywhere near. The game should challenge the players too and I'd rather a player in a more solo situation make his own decisions. For the most part they tend to not go overboard and usually all I have to say is "how are you two talking?" and they are like "yeah we can't".

That reminds me when we had this guy's girlfriend always play with us. She just wasn't into games, but played because he liked it, but she would not so much as roll a d20 without conferring with him first and getting his opinion

Not so much meta-gaming and dating-gaming

Greg K · Nov 5, 2014

In my D&D campaigns, I have a variety of tactics including
a. The addition of the skills: Culture (Specific) Lore, Celestial Lore, Demon/Devil Lore, Dragon Lore, Fey Lore, Spirit Lore (Ghosts, ancestral spirits, elementals, shaman totems, familiars, etc.), Undead Lore
b. Altering the monster

Culture Lore: The character knows about a specific culture. Culture can also include humanoid creatures (e.g., centaurs, kobolds, giants, lizard men, orcs), but depending upon the campaign, this might require a specific regional group. Among the knowledge included are legends and monsters of the area. Characters do not have to roll for common knowledge about their culture and have advantage on other knowledge rolls about their culture. The farther one gets from their homeland, the DCs to know something may be higher than for a character from another region and/or the character might have disadvantage. Depending on the situation, some things might be impossible for some characters to know while not for another someone of another culture

Proficiency in a Monster Type specific Lores provide a more broader general knowledge about = a given creature type. In some instances the skill will not provide the detailed knowledge of a specific creature as that possessed by locals living near the creature. Other times, the locals might have some wrong information while the person trained in the monster lore will have the correct information.

In addition to the use of skills, the creature might be changed from the MM description. The troll in one culture might simply a bigger tougher version of an ogre with a different appearance (think Shadowrun troll). The creature has no flame vulnerability, but local legend might say the creature is more vulnerable, because someone damaged the creature with fire allowing providing the person the opportunity to escape.

Lanefan · Nov 6, 2014

Lerysh said:
As the player who usually offers the optimal solution, let me just say, it's done for expedience sake. There are some players who just don't want to do the combat. Or they literally ONLY want to roll, not decide. I offer them choices so they can choose quicker, not because I want the optimal solution in every situation. And as a DM I would not want to discourage cooperation between players. While it's up to the player to decide his PCs actions there is no reason to not allow a little tactical discussion at the table.

Of course, as long as the characters in play are reasonably able to have that discussion, as in:
- they share a common language (it's surprising how often this comes up)
- they are within earshot of each other (being able to see each other helps too, but isn't mandatory)
- neither character is in a Silence effect
- neither character is trying to be stealthy at the time
- they don't take very long about it; and keep in mind speech is one of the very few things a DM can clock in real time.

Lan-"my tactical discussion usually starts and ends with 'You go right, I've got left!'"-efan

Mallus · Nov 6, 2014

Iosue said:
Inasmuch as I try not to prioritize my fun over my players', I also do not prioritize their fun over mine.

Speaking as a frequent DM, my primary "fun" is having engaged players. Their interest in what's going on right now in the game is the best metric I've found for determining whether or not I'm doing a good job as DM (I also like outright compliments and when the players laugh/groan/grind their teeth at my puns!).

I try not to judge (or even characterize) that engagement. It's none of my business. Each player can define the level & kind of immersion they want for themselves. As long as their paying attention & playing nice with each other, we're good.

They're engaged with the metagame. I'd rather they were engaged with the game itself.

How do you define "the game itself", if not as the "the game the real people are really playing"?

The in-game world is a subset of the real world around the table. Playing a game at that table is the real thing; the game. How can it be anything else.

What you're calling "the game itself" is just a preference for a certain mode of play. Which is cool as a statement of preference (hello tautology my old friend...). But it kinda sucks as an attempt at a definition of the game.

Why must we go there? Look at all that middle you've excluded. The line between "engaged with the game by conferencing combat tactics" and "totally disengaged, looking at phone" is not fine, it's a gulf the size of an ocean.

In my campaigns, that ocean-sized gulf is about five-to-ten minutes.

I wasn't trying to make some crazy exaggerated strawman-point. I was sharing real, personal experience. Players get distracted easily, mainly because of the one-to-many DM-to-player relationship, and it's nice when they aren't. This has been true for as long as I've been gaming. Back it the day it was leafing through rule books or the latest Ray Feist paperback, instead of the omni-distraction that is the contemporary smartphone.

It's that people would tell me what to do on my turn.

Aha... got it! We're not talking about the same thing at all. I thought you were objecting to tactics discussions that couldn't plausibly occur place in-character, during battle. But your issue is with unwanted kibitzing from other players telling you how to play your PC. Yeah, that's rude.

It's, to quote Mal Reynolds, meddlesome to criticize other players for not valuing immersion in precisely the way you do, but it's a serious breach of etiquette for other players to keep offering unsolicited advice after you've told them to stop. They should respect your preferred playstyle (as you should respect theirs).

Manbearcat · Nov 6, 2014

I'm pretty much in lockstep with your initial post and this follow-up response to Iosue [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]. My guess would be that our tables probably look and feel pretty similar.

As GM, I'm primarily interested in (a) pushing every moment of every session toward conflicts that my players (through their characters) care about, (b) playing worthy/fun opposition/adversarial elements to the hilt, and (c) sustaining an intensive, dramatic pace throughout. My players are primarily interested in playing the heroic archetype they've chosen by being put in thematic spots (conflicts) that * test their mettle (both the player's from an action declaration perspective and the character's from a "post-conflict fallout" perspective) and which force them to address the dramatic premise(s) that they've embedded into the core of their characters (or how it synthesizes with setting). Through that process, we flesh out the characters/places/history of our game-world, find out who wins/loses/suffers/changes, and derive our fun.

Metagame transparency and overt leveraging of that transparent metagame are key components of that fomula spitting out the product we're looking for. Less metagame transparency can make action declaration more difficult for players (stunting the autonomy and expedience of * above) than we would like. This in turn negatively affects my pacing goals (see "c" above) which is key to keeping us all mentally engaged, excited, and on our toes. Players are spending too much mental overhead on trying to divine numbers from opacity and then calculate odds of success with a margin of error they are uncomfortable with (that would exceed what it would be if they were actually "there"). That bogs decision-making and yields more back-and-forth than is necessary to clarify the math-centric relationship of the fictional components of the imaginary space we're operating in to the system's resolution mechanics. Finally, these multiple negative feedbacks affect my players' ability to emotionally interface with the dramatic components of play (that they would be otherwise invested in) and the plodding path generally just erodes my mental sharpness and antagonizes my sensibilities toward a pace that doesn't let up.

Iosue · Nov 7, 2014

Mallus said:
Speaking as a frequent DM, my primary "fun" is having engaged players. Their interest in what's going on right now in the game is the best metric I've found for determining whether or not I'm doing a good job as DM (I also like outright compliments and when the players laugh/groan/grind their teeth at my puns!).

Agreed.

I try not to judge (or even characterize) that engagement. It's none of my business. Each player can define the level & kind of immersion they want for themselves. As long as their paying attention & playing nice with each other, we're good.

My issue is when some players' level and kind of immersion is at odds with others'. In such a situation, I feel that as DM my job is to some degree set the parameters. Nor am I wholly inflexible. In the 4e group I played with, the kind of metagaming I mentioned earlier was the order of the day; the guys loved it. As a player, I got on board with it because that was clearly the rest of the group's preferred mode of play. As a DM I would not endeavor to stifle it, if I was running the game for them.

How do you define "the game itself", if not as the "the game the real people are really playing"?

The in-game world is a subset of the real world around the table. Playing a game at that table is the real thing; the game. How can it be anything else.

If there's such a thing as a "meta-game", then it's distinct from the game itself. If you don't believe in the concept of "meta-game", then that's cool, but it's a different discussion. For me, in as much as it's a role-playing game, then decisions made through eyes of the characters are the game, and decisions made through eyes of the players are the meta-game. As DM, my goal is to keep the players in the former mode as much as possible, dropping to the latter mode only when necessary.

What you're calling "the game itself" is just a preference for a certain mode of play. Which is cool as a statement of preference (hello tautology my old friend...). But it kinda sucks as an attempt at a definition of the game.

I'm not attempting a Unified Definition of Gaming here. I'm explaining my preferences for a certain mode of play, which is the game for all concerned. Other tables, other modes of play, other kinds of games.

In my campaigns, that ocean-sized gulf is about five-to-ten minutes.

I wasn't trying to make some crazy exaggerated strawman-point. I was sharing real, personal experience. Players get distracted easily, mainly because of the one-to-many DM-to-player relationship, and it's nice when they aren't. This has been true for as long as I've been gaming. Back it the day it was leafing through rule books or the latest Ray Feist paperback, instead of the omni-distraction that is the contemporary smartphone.

A five to 10 minute gap of not being engaged (in combat) in my games is unheard of. Particularly with 5e. That's one reason why I discourage conferences during combat. It's rare that someone takes a full minute to take their turn. DM + 3-5 players means that sometime before 5 minutes is up either a player will be taking a turn, or dealing with enemies attacking them. Tempo is highly important to me, and one way I maintain engagement.

Aha... got it! We're not talking about the same thing at all. I thought you were objecting to tactics discussions that couldn't plausibly occur place in-character, during battle. But your issue is with unwanted kibitzing from other players telling you how to play your PC. Yeah, that's rude.

It's all of a piece. OOC tactical discussions encourage players to feel free giving suggestions on other people's turn, or to expound on how a player should do X because he or she is planning to do Y, which will lead to result Z. OOC tactical discussions drag things out, meaning players who are not part of the discussion aren't engaged. OOC tactical discussions are metagame, not in-game. For all these reasons and more, I dislike OOC tactical discussions.