D&D 4E 4e: the metagame.

[Kzach]

I've listened to all the podcasts. I've read every press release. I've followed as many conversations as is humanly possible to tolerate on forums and blogs everywhere. And I have come to one significant conclusion.

4e encourages metagaming.

From telling players which monsters are minions, to knowing what AC a monster hits, to being told you've just started a skill challenge and which skills are primary to success, to knowing whenever a monster is bloodied or not. There are numerous examples of how 4e encourages or even requires metagaming.

Now, ask me five years ago if I liked this idea and I probably would've torn your face off and told you you're ruining the hobby. But nowadays I differentiate between good and bad metagaming.

'Good' metagaming is rules-based and centres around the concept of the players making solid and informed tactical decisions.

'Bad' metagaming is when people use information they have but their character wouldn't have, to gain some advantage in the game.

At least, that's my take. I was curious to see what everyone else thought on this matter and whether or not they've railed against the trend and stuck to their old-guard habits, or have embraced the new ideology and make regular sacrifices to the 4e gods.

 

[Stalker0]

4e encourages metagaming.

From telling players which monsters are minions, to knowing what AC a monster hits, to being told you've just started a skill challenge and which skills are primary to success, to knowing whenever a monster is bloodied or not. There are numerous examples of how 4e encourages or even requires metagaming.

The devil is in the description. If I say, "Guys, those 4 monsters over there look like minions" that seem metagamey. If I say, "Guys those 4 monsters over there are a lot weaker and almost seem afraid to fight you" that is flavorful description.

If I say, "Guys, that monster is bloodied" vs "Guys, that monster has just suffered a grevious blow and attacks seem just a little bit weaker." Its the same thing.

Adding flavor to mechanics requires effort, so its easy to fall into the trap of just giving players the mechanics with no immersive description. But I wouldn't say its that metagamey, no more so then dnd has to be in order to play the game.

 

[Runestar]

I still say the line between good and bad metagaming is still very thin.

For example, if we assume that the wizard's shield spell requires that the DM let the player know the foe's attack roll (or at least, if using the shield power will make any difference between a hit and a miss) to use effectively, I don't see how we can justify it in-game. If I see an axe hurtling my way, I may not necessarily know if activating a shield will be sufficient to protect me from it. I can only use it, and hope for the best (meaning there could still be a chance that the shield fails to deflect the axe - it is a gamble I take). But clearly, this would make the spell too limited and useless in the game. So it is not so much of which is deemed good or bad metagaming, but more of which is the lesser of 2 evils.

In the end, we are still using information only a player could have (but not the character himself) to get some sort of advantage, but it is justifed by the rationalization that running it this way would allow for a more "fun" game. Or at least a less frustrating one where you find yourself constantly having to outguess the DM.

As such, I think it really all boils down to what passes for "fun" in your games. Do the benefits of knowing which foes are minions outweigh the drawbacks in your games? If so, then disclose the information by all means. if you feel that minions ought to be virtually indistinguishable from normal enemies, then don't point them out as such.

To be honest, I have had to contend with a fair amount of metagaming in my 3e games (nothing is really a mystery anymore when your players are quite familiar with the MM after so many years). So yeah, I am probably cool with allowing metagame knowledge in 4e.

 

[blargney the second]

It's just plain old gaming if you're using information from the game to play the game.

Metagaming is actually something that is independent of the game system. Check out this cool site about meta-gaming strategies.
-blarg

 

[Mouseferatu]

For example, if we assume that the wizard's shield spell requires that the DM let the player know the foe's attack roll (or at least, if using the shield power will make any difference between a hit and a miss) to use effectively, I don't see how we can justify it in-game.

Easily. People who are actually trained in combat have pretty quick reaction times, and even a low-level wizard has more skills than your average peasant. I don't think it's a stretch at all for the wizard to make a snap judgment that says "Man, that axe is coming really close, it's going to hit me no matter what" and "You know, there's enough of an angle that I bet my magic can deflect it."

(Obviously, they're not taking the time to think those out in words. It's instinct, the same one that tells a boxer whether to duck or block an incoming blow.)

 

[KarinsDad]

Easily. People who are actually trained in combat have pretty quick reaction times, and even a low-level wizard has more skills than your average peasant. I don't think it's a stretch at all for the wizard to make a snap judgment that says "Man, that axe is coming really close, it's going to hit me no matter what" and "You know, there's enough of an angle that I bet my magic can deflect it."

(Obviously, they're not taking the time to think those out in words. It's instinct, the same one that tells a boxer whether to duck or block an incoming blow.)

The opposite can be true as well.

The Wizard reacts quickly and underreacts. I don't think it's a stretch at all for the wizard to make a snap judgment that's wrong.

It can still be fun to not always be 100% right in decision making.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The opposite can be true as well.

The Wizard reacts quickly and underreacts. I don't think it's a stretch at all for the wizard to make a snap judgment that's wrong.

It can still be fun to not always be 100% right in decision making.

I wasn't saying you can't play it that way. If the DM and player agree that the player doesn't get to know if the shield will work or not, that's cool.

I was just saying that going the other way is justifiable in narrative, not just meta, terms.

 

[zillah]

I believe you are taking it out of context. Yes, all this new information that we are supposed to be getting from the DM back in 3.5 would have been meta-gaming.
This same information(bloodied, skill challenges, monster strength) are supposed to be given to the player and are in the rules. These are in the context of the rules of 4.0. The DM has to tell me when a monster is bloodied. Why? because certain powers kick off that bloodied status. Like bloodhunt, dragonborn frenzy, and certain powers from classes even.
Skill challenges can be skill challenges without the DM telling his players. Its very simple, and can be done in any way.
Monster "attitude" can be done with insight checks. It says it right in the PHB. It can tell you when a monster is going to start a fight, or even if it will.

The minion thing idk. My DM says to the group "there are 6-7 of these guys that look ______ and 2 guys behind them that look like _____. so when we drop 1 of those 6-7, we know they are minions because they all look alike. don't know the others aren't, we just know they look differet. After taking a hit and not dropping, we figure out they aren't minions.

 

[NilesB]

I think the reverse is True, 4e is intentionally working to reverse the metagaming trend of concealing information from players that their characters could discern without difficulty.


What AC a monster hits? The characters can see and feel the attack, the players can't.

Is the monster bloodied? Do you honestly believe that skilled combatants have no ability to judge if they are winning or losing a fight?


It's a dirt common bad DMing habit to refuse to answer questions about information universally known in the PCs culture an d then mock or punish the faux pas that inevitably result. And most of the DMs that do it think they are being utterly reasonable.

I'm glad 4e is trying to reverse this terrible trend.

 

[Ravingdork]

This same information(bloodied, skill challenges, monster strength) are supposed to be given to the player and are in the rules. These are in the context of the rules of 4.0. The DM has to tell me when a monster is bloodied. Why? because certain powers kick off that bloodied status. Like bloodhunt, dragonborn frenzy, and certain powers from classes even.

I absolutely hate it when...

DM: It looks as though you've beatent he bluster out of him.

ME: So, is he bloodied?

DM: ...Yes.

It is such a waste of time when DMs try to prance around the rules like that!

Seriously, jsut be up front with the info and be as clear and concise as you can and the game flows tons smoother.

I've seen 4E battles take twice as long and fair half as well as others due to the kind of behavior I describe.