D&D 5E Average damage or rolled damage?

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think the definition is that far off. With something as simplistic and cut-and-dried as "no idea what trolls are, never used fire as a weapon of first resort," sure. What about "Wizard deciding not to cast spells at a golem"? Whether or not that is meta knowledge requires, in itself, a meta-discussion about whether golems being resistant to magic is a Known Thing. And it is still player knowledge first and foremost, even if a justification can be found in the character after the fact (also an example of a purely player-driven action: the character simply knows or doesn't, there is no internal search for the justification for possessing that knowledge.

 

[Imaculata]

And as a player, I would hate this. It doesn't help me play the game in any meaningful way. It makes it more difficult for me to stay in character, to think in-character. Will it harm my role-playing? Probably not in any way you'd see as DM. But it would absolutely damage my immersion and my enjoyment.

So yes, meta-gaming is a thing that absolutely exists--at some tables. It may not at yours, because of your chosen playstyle, and that's fine. But it's not a playstyle that appeals to everyone.

I don't understand why being open about the hitpoints of a monster would damage immersion. In the end, does is not boil down to storytelling?

When I run a campaign, I don't tell my players literally how many HP a monster has left, but I do describe to them how wounded a monster looks. They can tell if a monster is at death's door, or still full of life. I assume that in any real battle scenario, you would be able to see the injuries of your opponents. I do try to keep it real though. An undead is hard to determine, since it is already a wandering corpse, and a ghost makes it impossible. A fully armored enemy may have wounds underneath his armor that make it difficult to tell how much health he has left (although his movements could give away whether he is about to topple). And sometimes I ask for a skill check, if the severity of the wounds is difficult to assess.

But I think this sort of information is essential for running encounters. Players need to be able to make an informed choice who to attack next. By the way, I'm also consistent with this rule, and apply it to estimating the wounds of fellow players as well. If a player is wearing heavy armor, then the armor may first have to be taken off before the wounds can be examined. A heavily armored, and severely wounded paladin may have blood flowing down from the gaps in the armor. But until they take the armor off, it is hard to say just how bad a shape the player is in. And once again, I may ask for a skill check to accurately determine the exact severity of the wounds (especially if the source of injury is some kind of poison or ability drain effect).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Example 2: My character has no idea what a troll is, but I instantly go for fire instead of the sword that I've used in every other fight, because I the player know that trolls have a fire weakness.

That's metagaming.

No, that's a DM trying to thought-police his players and as a result preventing a player that knows what a troll is from playing his character in a way that is entirely okay for a completely new and unknowledgeable player to play theirs - or is telling a new player nothing more than "you are not allowed to ever do anything for the first time, because if you haven't done something a bunch of times already I'm going to assume that you aren't doing it just because the idea struck you and seemed cool, but that you are trying to use meta-knowledge to gain an advantage."

You may not like to hear it, but what you are doing is forcing experienced players to meta-game - you are just insisting that they do so in a way that results in their character doing something other than the "good idea". If you were actually avoiding metagaming, you'd completely separate what the player and character know - which, by the way, is only achieved by letting the player decide what their character knows or does not know as long as it is possible that their character know or guess those details, or choose that action with no idea how it will turn out.

 

[Maxperson]

No, that's a DM trying to thought-police his players and as a result preventing a player that knows what a troll is from playing his character in a way that is entirely okay for a completely new and unknowledgeable player to play theirs - or is telling a new player nothing more than "you are not allowed to ever do anything for the first time, because if you haven't done something a bunch of times already I'm going to assume that you aren't doing it just because the idea struck you and seemed cool, but that you are trying to use meta-knowledge to gain an advantage."

You may not like to hear it, but what you are doing is forcing experienced players to meta-game - you are just insisting that they do so in a way that results in their character doing something other than the "good idea". If you were actually avoiding metagaming, you'd completely separate what the player and character know - which, by the way, is only achieved by letting the player decide what their character knows or does not know as long as it is possible that their character know or guess those details, or choose that action with no idea how it will turn out.

Only if we use your false definition of metagaming. It's convenient that you've changed it to match your beliefs, but it does nothing for any conversations about metagaming. You just act as a hindrance to meaningful discourse on the subject.

 

[Imaculata]

I'd argue that it is a completely reasonable to attack any creature in D&D with fire. It doesn't really matter to me whether a player knows that the monster happens to be weak to it. Because I don't design my encounter around gotcha mechanics. In fact, I'll probably outright foreshadow what the creature's weakness or immunity is, before they fight it.

For example, my players recently fought a bunch of ghost pirates. I told them right at the start of combat, how they could see the weapons of the city guards simply passing through the bodies of the ghosts, without harming them. I also told them that the ghosts were wielding weapons that were engulfed in ghostly blue flames, which although they passed through their enemies, left burn wounds. The players immediately deducted that the ghosts were wielding a type of ghost-touch weapons, and that they would need to acquire one for them selves in order to stand any chance.

So right away any unfair gotcha moments are removed from the equation. The players know all they need to know about the fight and their opponents, and can immediately start forming a strategy. And yet it did not diminish the challenge of what they were up against, nor did it diminish the excitement.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Only if we use your false definition of metagaming. It's convenient that you've changed it to match your beliefs, but it does nothing for any conversations about metagaming. You just act as a hindrance to meaningful discourse on the subject.

The only hindrance to meaningful discourse on this subject is your insisting on calling my definition false even though it actually matches yours, you just choose to ignore that fact because it is inconvenient to your position.

 

[Maxperson]

The only hindrance to meaningful discourse on this subject is your insisting on calling my definition false even though it actually matches yours, you just choose to ignore that fact because it is inconvenient to your position.

It doesn't match at all. You said that simply using player knowledge to make a decision was metagaming and that's false. It is specifically when you have the character use knowledge that it doesn't have, but the player does. When I have my troll hunter who knows the troll's fire weakness use fire on a troll, I'm using player knowledge to make that decision (your definition), but I'm not metagaming.

Your paragraph below is also very wrong.

No, that's a DM trying to thought-police his players and as a result preventing a player that knows what a troll is from playing his character in a way that is entirely okay for a completely new and unknowledgeable player to play theirs - or is telling a new player nothing more than "you are not allowed to ever do anything for the first time, because if you haven't done something a bunch of times already I'm going to assume that you aren't doing it just because the idea struck you and seemed cool, but that you are trying to use meta-knowledge to gain an advantage."

For that paragraph to be true, you have to prove that a PC can't use fire on trolls the first time he meets one when he grew up near the troll fen and knows all about trolls, or that a PC whose grandfather was a troll hunter and taught him about them couldn't have imparted that knowledge to him before his first troll encounter, or the thousands of other scenarios where a PC could acquire that knowledge in game prior to fighting trolls.

There is no thought police. There is metagaming. Your suggestion above is more bupkis. That's not how people who don't allow metagaming generally run their games, and you aren't required to metagame in order to avoid metagaming. It's absurd of you to suggest that in order to avoid having my PC use knowledge he doesn't have, I have to have him use knowledge that he doesn't have.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It doesn't match at all. You said that simply using player knowledge to make a decision was metagaming and that's false. It is specifically when you have the character use knowledge that it doesn't have, but the player does. When I have my troll hunter who knows the troll's fire weakness use fire on a troll, I'm using player knowledge to make that decision (your definition), but I'm not metagaming.

Semantics - I know you know what I meant, as we've been through this all before and you clearly remember it since you even know what example I liked to use (the troll and the fire).

And further, your still insisting that experienced players must act differently than new players because of their out of character knowledge - since you won't let me have my character guess that fire will hurt and scare the unknown creature, because fire hurts and scares most things, and use something besides the same-old stuff I always do because I feel like doing something new.

Your paragraph below is also very wrong.

For that paragraph to be true, you have to prove that a PC can't use fire on trolls the first time he meets one when he grew up near the troll fen and knows all about trolls, or that a PC whose grandfather was a troll hunter and taught him about them couldn't have imparted that knowledge to him before his first troll encounter, or the thousands of other scenarios where a PC could acquire that knowledge in game prior to fighting trolls.

Actually, the things you bring up are my point - you can't just declare that I'm metagaming because I used knowledge my character doesn't have because there are countless reasons the character actually could have that knowledge, and it's up to me as a player to choose if one or more of them are the case.

Plus, I'm also allowed to have the character guess, or simply take actions they have no idea what the result of will actually be.

The only way to actually define what I'm doing in the scenario as meta-gaming is to police my thoughts by removing my ability to determine my character's background, and by removing my ability to role-play the character as guessing because of what I know (which is using my knowledge that the character doesn't have to determine the character's thoughts/actions, which you claim to want to avoid but force me to do by your removal of the ability to guess).

There is no thought police.

Nonsense. Bringing what I know as a player into the game, rather than only focusing on what the character can know or guess at, is trying to police thoughts.

There is metagaming.

Only when you force it.

Your suggestion above is more bupkis.

Your bupkis is the only bupkis here.

That's not how people who don't allow metagaming generally run their games, and you aren't required to metagame in order to avoid metagaming. It's absurd of you to suggest that in order to avoid having my PC use knowledge he doesn't have, I have to have him use knowledge that he doesn't have.

You can call it absurd, but I have clearly demonstrated (perhaps not in this thread, but to you on another forum when we previously had the same conversation) that your attempts to separate character and player knowledge beyond a player doing so for themself by deciding what a character does or doesn't know, force player knowledge to cause actions that are different from the ones that the same character played by a completely unknowledgeable player would be allowed to take.

It's a simple test: Any time you think someone might be metagaming, ask yourself "would a completely unknowledgeable player be able to guess, no matter how lucky it seems, at the information needed to attempt the stated action?"
If yes: Not metagaming no matter who takes the action or what they know as a player because the action obviously doesn't require player knowledge.

If no: Not metagaming no matter who takes the action or what they know as a player because knowing the actually impossible to know is playing in bad faith (a.k.a. cheating), not metagaming.

 

[delericho]

Actually, the things you bring up are my point - you can't just declare that I'm metagaming because I used knowledge my character doesn't have because there are countless reasons the character actually could have that knowledge, and it's up to me as a player to choose if one or more of them are the case.

There are times the rules firmly establish that a character doesn't have particular information.

Plus, I'm also allowed to have the character guess, or simply take actions they have no idea what the result of will actually be.

For a fairly long time (back in 3e days) I had to make sure to keep a note of PCs' Spot and Listen modifiers and to roll those checks for them. Because if I didn't then the players would respond to being asked for such a check (and with no other trigger) by having their characters load up on all manner of defensive enchantments.

And yes, they did it every single time a check was asked for, and they didn't prep for an ambush except when a check was called for.

It was really blatant - my calling for a check meant an ambush was coming, and although the dice clearly indicated that the characters didn't know about it, they'd "just happen" to decide that then (and only then) was the time to get ready.

I guess it's lucky there's no such thing as metagaming.

 

[Azurewraith]

There are times the rules firmly establish that a character doesn't have particular information.



For a fairly long time (back in 3e days) I had to make sure to keep a note of PCs' Spot and Listen modifiers and to roll those checks for them. Because if I didn't then the players would respond to being asked for such a check (and with no other trigger) by having their characters load up on all manner of defensive enchantments.

And yes, they did it every single time a check was asked for, and they didn't prep for an ambush except when a check was called for.

It was really blatant - my calling for a check meant an ambush was coming, and although the dice clearly indicated that the characters didn't know about it, they'd "just happen" to decide that then (and only then) was the time to get ready.

I guess it's lucky there's no such thing as metagaming.

Damn that sucks i would of either A) said nope not happening stop metagaming you butt wipe or B) called for checks to spot clouds and kittens and grass utill they burned all their slots then ambushed them with 3dragons 2 giants 3ninjas 4 pirates a shark and the kitchen sink