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

[Nebulous]

Is it metagaming for a wizard 100 feet away to cast a radius spell through a door, over the heads of allies and enemies, framing the outer edge of the spell PERFECTLY so that it hits the bad guys and leaves the PCs unscathed?

Probably. But it happens all the time and I let it happen. It's not the kind of argument that is ultimately going to make the game better.

 

[howandwhy99]

Player Character knowledge is tracked by the DM. Player knowledge is tracked by the player. Or not, it's the player's choice. Whether or not a player remembers what they have encountered so far is up to them. It's part of playing the game.

Game knowledge is what is really at issue here. What have the players learned about the game? Whether they are on their 1st character or their 10th (100th?), they are able to continue playing the same game/campaign instance across the course of each character. ...Of course they need to begin at the very beginning of the game after losing each too. The individual PC's "knowledge" is just another bit of the game that's tracked behind the screen. Which allows for the DM to operate the PC as an NPC if and when it ever becomes so.

In terms of 5e though I don't think the OP's topic is really part of that game.

 

[Nebulous]

Pretty much this. I don't expect a player who has been playing this game since the early 80's to try and dribble a sphere of annihilation like he had no idea what was going on just to stay in character with Cletus the lvl 1 fighter. That is my table style though. My big metagaming problem is when using a grid having spell casters count squares like they have a laser range finder.

LOL. I wrote my post before seeing this. Exactly. This happens every. Single. Game.

 

[Joe Liker]

In a world where trolls exist, how realistic is it to assume the PCs have never heard of one? Not very.

They've probably heard stories about their evil deeds, the valiant heroes who have slain one or more, and their strengths and weaknesses. They've probably even seen a drawing or two, so they have a pretty good idea of what one looks like.

All this hemming and hawing around the introduction of a "new" monster into the characters' lives is silly. Being descriptive is great; being intentionally obscure about something that should be common knowledge is amateurish, bordering on obnoxious.

 

[ranger69]

It seems that, understandably, different groups have different levels of tolerance to meta-gaming. As a player I try not to meta-game, but inevitably it sneaks in. I do try to check with the DM if it is reasonable for my to have the info I have as a player. As a DM I take each case as it comes along. If I feel that it is reasonable knowledge for the character that is fine.

As mentioned previously it is discussing tactics at length during combat that I tend to discourage. Also as mentioned above counting squares ( or hexes in our case) is something that I am not happy with. Although if a player conceals counting hexes whilst waiting their turn is also obvious, but I let slide.

 

[rjfTrebor]

In a world where trolls exist, how realistic is it to assume the PCs have never heard of one? Not very.

They've probably heard stories about their evil deeds, the valiant heroes who have slain one or more, and their strengths and weaknesses. They've probably even seen a drawing or two, so they have a pretty good idea of what one looks like.

All this hemming and hawing around the introduction of a "new" monster into the characters' lives is silly. Being descriptive is great; being intentionally obscure about something that should be common knowledge is amateurish, bordering on obnoxious.

most people in our world had never heard of a lion before globalization brought on by technology. Even today, i bet there are people in less developed countries who don't know what alligators or electric eels are. It's not unreasonable to assume that an adventurer might have knowledge like this, but it should just be given away without a roll.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Also as mentioned above counting squares ( or hexes in our case) is something that I am not happy with. Although if a player conceals counting hexes whilst waiting their turn is also obvious, but I let slide.

Wait... you play on a hex map (presuming a battle mat) but discourage counting hexes? So you play with a grid, but the players have to ignore the grid and play theatre of the mind?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Wait... you play on a hex map (presuming a battle mat) but discourage counting hexes? So you play with a grid, but the players have to ignore the grid and play theatre of the mind?

I don't like when they say they are going to cast a spell on this spot, then "oh wait, I'll move it here to get...actually how about here to get that one...etc." I always tell them its like throwing hand grenades into a melee combat and expecting to not get their own guys fighting in that mess. So I usually tell them to eyeball it and point to where its going. The grid is there to make calculating movement easier, but I'd rather the players not use it like and old Gold Box game. A pet peeve. Getting rid of the grid and just using a huge blank mat and a ruler would be best though. Maybe I should try that.

 

[Piratecat]

Is it metagaming for a wizard 100 feet away to cast a radius spell through a door, over the heads of allies and enemies, framing the outer edge of the spell PERFECTLY so that it hits the bad guys and leaves the PCs unscathed?

Probably. But it happens all the time and I let it happen. It's not the kind of argument that is ultimately going to make the game better.

We handle tricky shots like that with an arcana check.

 

[Nebulous]

We handle tricky shots like that with an arcana check.

I might need to adopt that. As a DM, it does bother me. Laser-like accuracy within centimeters of an obscured target area in the middle of hectic combat.