D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

One example of not playing in good faith: Putting a water trap in a dungeon and insisting there is literally zero evidence that a character has that would justify precautionary casting of water breathing. "Gotcha" challenges are bad-faith play.

"Gotcha" challenges are part of the game.

Have you never studied the Holy Works of Sage Grimtooth and taken His words unto your bosom?

More seriously, what's the difference between being surprised by a trap and being surprised by a monster, other than the likely amount of pain/lethality it might inflict? I mean, maybe if the water trap hadn't finished off the rogue an ogre hiding around the next corner would have, for all we know.

Lan-"boy did this thread ever explode overnight"-efan

 

[iserith]

From here, it appears that you agree with secondhander that players using information their characters do not have to decide character actions is a bad thing. The difference appears to be solely that secondhander thinks the players bear some culpability in the way they play whereas you believe that it's only the DM's responsibility to prevent the players from having the inappropriate knowledge. You're argument that you don't care about metagaming is hollow -- you clearly do care, and have stated multiple times that you do extra work to prevent it from being a problem. You've moved the problem to a different space (ie, offloaded it entirely from the players) and then tried to deny it's a problem. But you're still doing work to fix that problem. It's all very confusing as to why you'd deny it's a problem you have when you then go on to talk glowingly about your solutions to the problem. Perhaps it's a terminology issue? You don't think it's a problem because you have a solution?

I'm doing no extra work at my table to address it other than telling players in Session Zero that they don't have to worry about it. Except as the DMG states with regard to bad assumptions. I don't see using player knowledge as bad in any other sense. You won't find me changing around monster resistances to defeat "metagaming," for example. You might find me changing them for thematic reasons which (ice trolls! or whatever) argues for players not to act on assumptions or at least be aware of the risks. I don't pass notes. I don't take players into other rooms. It seems like you are conflating my endorsement of a particular practice with me actually implementing that practice. Or perhaps I just wasn't clear enough.

And, all that said, you're being terribly dismissive of the way in which other people address the same problem. It's very similar to telling a bunch of strangers they don't roleplay properly. You definitely have A solution to the problem, but it's not THE solution. It would be helpful to see a bit more willingness to countenance other possible methods of dealing with it.

I don't dismiss how others deal with the problem. If it works for them, great! But since it's self-evident that players can't draw upon knowledge they don't have, techniques that ensure they don't have the knowledge with which to "metagame" are clearly superior to hoping several other people don't draw upon knowledge they do have. If you care about players avoiding "metagaming," that is.

 

[Bawylie]

But you get my point, if it wasn't the Konami code and was something truly random and unknowable to that specific character? That's all I've been trying to argue in this thread. I didn't mean it to blow up and I'm sorry if I came across in a bad way.

But let me ask this. Say it's a random code, whatever whatever. What harm is done in this situation?

If the team has the answer and moving the answer from one teammate to another is not part of the challenge, does it matter?

Part 2
If it IS part of the challenge, what role does the DM play in ensuring the players understand that?


-Brad

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[machineelf]

Lan-"boy did this thread ever explode overnight"-efan

I was at work all night with not much to do other than read and reply to enworld posts, so I think it's mostly my fault.

 

[Bawylie]

Eh ... I don't think that's quite right. I mean, yes and no. There are bad DMs of all stripes and kinds, and many bad DMs don't like it when "their" story gets ruined. But that can be because of "metagaming" or "lucky die rolls," or "players going to a different town," or whatever. Metagaming is a symptom, not the disease.

That's usually something most tables grow out of.

Instead, this is usually a reflection of different priorities and playstyles. Metagaming, as a general thing, always exists to some extent. The question is how the table chooses to handle it. Some tables prefer that the characters attempt to limit themselves to their in-character knowledge, others don't. I think most table agree that "cheating" as metagaming isn't allowed, and most tables also agree that some degree of metagaming has to be included (because this is a game with mechanics, dice rolls, etc., that are known to the player and not to the PC). It's the middle cases (encountering monsters whose lore is known to the players, but probably not to the PC, for example) that there is more of a "taste" divide.




One of the problems with D&D is that the players always know too much. This is news?

“You obtain surprise over three Clickclicks.”
“Clickclicks? Oh, yeah, they’re in Supplement Three. Hand it to me. And where’s Greyhawk? It had a note about them.”
A pause.
“We shout out ‘November’.”
“That’s right, the Clickclicks fall over dead.”

Sound familiar? The answer is to occasionally throw a monster at the party that keeps them on their toes, one that they have never seen before because it is unique. No rules cover it, so they have to find out the hard way what it’s like.


That's the opening. Basically, the concept was that players knew all the monsters, and this was a way to generate new and unexpected monsters. I often cite to it to show that the "problem" (if you view it as such) of metagaming has been around since the beginning. And, as I noted, different tables over time have evolved different ways of handling it.

Interesting. And yeah we used to run in killer dungeons where the only way you could succeed is if your new character could pass through where your recently killed character couldn't. Like the player knowledge was Counted On as part of it.

Like I mentioned upthread where new raid content comes out and some people throw themselves at it blind until they master it.


-Brad

 

[Lanefan]

I mean sure, if the other players truly don't want to know.

But fortunately, we have some coincidental developments to answer this question.

MMORPGs frequently introduce new content with new raids and bosses. Often, the very hardcore groups test themselves against the new content and record it and disseminate the videos. Bragging rights.

Following that, some groups put together visual guides for players who come after. So they get a sense of the new content and bosses and raids, and don't go in blind or feeling incompetent or helpless.

Most people don't like feeling incompetent or helpless. Most battles are prefaced by some rousing words or discussion of a plan. This is important psychologically even if it ends up tactically worthless.

And there's big view counts on these visual guides. People study them before they test themselves against that new content.

Which in my view is pretty much the same as cheating.

Failing that, at the very least videos like this go a long way towards defeating the learning-exploration-discovery part of the game, if you already know what's there and how to deal with it. Why bother playing, if you've already seen it all?

Now, I'm not saying every player does that. Some people really don't want to know. Cool.

When it comes to D&D count me as one such; count (almost) everyone I've ever gamed with as others.

But as to the idea that it's inconsiderate... maybe. It can be, if everyone is on the same page about no spoilers and someone comes along spoiling every encounter. But absent establishing No Spoilers as a common value, it's not inconsiderate at all. It's the height of considerate, normally, bc it's looking out for the success and wellbeing of the other players and adventurers.

Where I don't see "no spoilers" as needing to be established as a value or even mentioned at all; it's simply assumed as the baseline default, as is character knowledge trumping player knowledge*. And somebody breaking that wall *is* both being inconsiderate and playing in bad faith.

* - note my comments here and elsewhere are all based on ongoing campaign play; convention or tournament or one-off play is a different animal entirely with a whole different set of expectations and norms.

Lan-"they're called spoilers for a reason: they spoil things"-efan

 

[machineelf]

But let me ask this. Say it's a random code, whatever whatever. What harm is done in this situation?

If the team has the answer and moving the answer from one teammate to another is not part of the challenge, does it matter?

Part 2
If it IS part of the challenge, what role does the DM play in ensuring the players understand that?


-Brad

Because maybe part of the conflict the team is facing is PC1 getting to the main ship with the code in time while PC2, PC3, and PC4 hold off the intergalactic trolls long enough.

If the group knows all the answers and don't have to go through a process of character discovery, then it can remove big chunks of the conflict, story, and drama. Now, I want them to find the code, and maybe there are other options for them to find it (I hate when there is only one solution), but part of the experience, in my view, is discarded when conflict points can just be bypassed.

Part 2: In my group, we've talked about how we want to handle roleplaying and meta-gaming from the start. We are all on board with it. So my players would have no problems "pretending" they don't know the code until PC 1 arrives with it, or they find it another way.

 

[Bawylie]

Which in my view is pretty much the same as cheating.

Failing that, at the very least videos like this go a long way towards defeating the learning-exploration-discovery part of the game, if you already know what's there and how to deal with it. Why bother playing, if you've already seen it all?

When it comes to D&D count me as one such; count (almost) everyone I've ever gamed with as others.


Where I don't see "no spoilers" as needing to be established as a value or even mentioned at all; it's simply assumed as the baseline default, as is character knowledge trumping player knowledge*. And somebody breaking that wall *is* both being inconsiderate and playing in bad faith.

* - note my comments here and elsewhere are all based on ongoing campaign play; convention or tournament or one-off play is a different animal entirely with a whole different set of expectations and norms.

Lan-"they're called spoilers for a reason: they spoil things"-efan

Fair enough. But I don't think "No spoilers, please" can be assumed as a default any longer.

We simply communicate too much.

Whether it Ought to be a default is a separate question.


-Brad