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

[Lanefan]

Being inconsiderate isn't cool. But in my experience you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who goes "Dammit, Bob, why didn't you let me waste my spell slot in that beholder's central eye cone?"

Where someone doing that at our table would likely be met with howls of annoyance from the other players.

It's more likely in my view they'll thank Bob for being a savvy player and sharing his knowledge with the team. I would personally be grateful for having a skilled player on my side.

You're equating metagaming with skill???

Yikes.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Since you forgot it Satryn and rolled a 9 on you con saving throw, take 1 level of exhaustion. hahahhahahhah

And, no long rest for you.

 

[Bawylie]

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.

I feel like these answers ignored my questions.

In part one, we posit that moving the answer from one area to another is Not part of the challenge. Your response is "well, maybe it IS." That's not quite fair.

In part 2 I ask what role the DM plays in ensuring the characters know it IS part of the challenge. Your answer is "no role at all" it seems. Or that by comment assent, your players already understand the dilemma?


-Brad

 

[iserith]

Where someone doing that at our table would likely be met with howls of annoyance from the other players.

DM's fault in my view.

You're equating metagaming with skill???

Nope. I'm encouraging players to use their skill in the game. If Bob would like to explain how his character knows about beholder eye cones, that's cool because it fleshes out the character. But he doesn't have to. I can just assume his character knows because reasons and move on.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't care if players "metagame." From my Session Zero document: ""Metagaming," defined as using player skill or knowledge that a character might not necessarily have, is fine.

While not perhaps in itself a dealbreaker, were I about to start in your game and read this I'd be lowering my expectation of enjoyment considerably, as learning and discovery - including trial end error, which seems to be anathaema these days - is a large part of the fun.

I want you to draw upon your skill as a player to try and succeed.

Where your players are all of vaguely-equal experience then I'll begrudgingly concede that using player experience (for that style of play) might make sense. But if it's a mix of veteran and new players it's horrible! The new players won't get a chance to learn by doing and-or learn by failing - they'll just be told what to do and (most likely) discouraged from trying anything else particularly if it's the "wrong idea" (hey, maybe cold works on trolls just like fire does!).

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I would quibble with this.

I think that while "gotcha" challenges are part of the history of the game, and they are a part of some table still, the general trend in D&D has been (for lack of a better phrase) "failing upwards."

That's why you can compare and contrast the sheer lethality of early D&D (numerous save or dies, traps, level drains, etc.) with the more forgiving aspects of the game as played today.

As is probably evident from many things I've posted around here, these trends towards a more forgiving game are not something I generally endorse.

Adventuring is dangerous business, the ultimate in high-risk high-reward.

(FWIW, I loved all of the Grimtooth's Traps, but I only ever used one of them. It was mainly for my own, personal, amusement.)

Truth be told, I think I've also only ever used one or two of his. That's not to say, however, that I haven't designed my own...

>evil cackle<

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

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

So it's beginning to seem.

Which is rather sad, really.

 

[robus]

Exactly. If it even *is* a problem, once again, not the DM's job. If the fellow players have an issue with the one player, they address it with him. Turning to the DM and waiting for the DM to "fix the problem" is just silly to me.

Agree with this and I think this is what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] was driving at but I was too thick to see it at the time. I still think an experienced DM should spot these player expectation mismatches and seek to resolve them before bad feeling erupts at the table. And by resolve that can be as simple as pointing out the problem and telling the players to come to an understanding before the next session. The DM could sit in as a facilitator of that discussion but absolutely it should be resolved by the players.

 

[robus]

That's a legacy feature. That sort of thing used to be explicitly the DM's job.

It's not surprising this kind of stuff holds over. Traditions are powerful. And often kept up for good reasons.

Overcoming one takes overwhelmingly good reasons for change and super majority agreement that the change is better. AND some sort of connection between the change and some other equally dearly held value.

People really like doing things they way they already do them.

-Brad

Well I'm not a legacy player. I think there's a reasonable expectation that the DM is experienced and thus could answer questions about whether particular behavior is typical in D&D or not. Of course it's not guaranteed to be the case, but it's probably more likely true than not.

 

[Lanefan]

DM's fault in my view.

Why? If the party's never seen a beholder before and the DM describes it (or shows a picture), why is it the DM's fault if the characters don't know about the antimagic eye before observing its effects?

What is so bad about learning through trial and error or trial and failure?

Nope. I'm encouraging players to use their skill in the game. If Bob would like to explain how his character knows about beholder eye cones, that's cool because it fleshes out the character. But he doesn't have to. I can just assume his character knows because reasons and move on.

There's the difference: I assume no character knowledge unless there's evidence otherwise (which could come from as simple a thing as a dice roll if someone says "what do I know about this creature?"...but who's to say that knowledge is correct, accurate or complete). PLAYER knowledge is utterly irrelevant...you're not role-playing yourself!

Lanefan