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

[Maxperson]

So, in this post, you agree that you set the stage where "metagaming" can occur and then you say anyone who "metagames" are "toddlers who have no self-control." That those who "metagame" are not acting "like adults."

I set a stage where a great many things can occur. That doesn't make me responsible for all that happens. People are expected not to metagame in my game. If they have no self-control and do so anyway, then yes, they are acting like a toddler. In your game where metagaming is okay, that wouldn't be the case.

And here I thought @secondhander's declaration that you're not roleplaying if you "metagame" was the most egregious thing posted in this thread. That seems so quaint now.

Perhaps if you didn't read things into my statement that aren't there, you wouldn't feel like that. I didn't declare everyone in existence who metagames to be a toddler.

You saw it here first, folks. @Maxperson knows he can stop "metagaming" before it begins, chooses not to, and declares those who don't conform "toddlers." What a twisted little social test you've concocted. LOL, hilarious.

The Strawman is strong with this one.

 

[iserith]

I set a stage where a great many things can occur. That doesn't make me responsible for all that happens. People are expected not to metagame in my game. If they have no self-control and do so anyway, then yes, they are acting like a toddler. In your game where metagaming is okay, that wouldn't be the case.

Sure, I believe you.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, I believe you.

Excellent!

 

[machineelf]

Reporting from the sick bed. We as SMs also set the stage and make it possible for PCs to steal from and kill other PCs. We expect them not to do so. If they do, then they are not welcome in the kind of game I run. It is the player's fault, not my fault as the DM, if they try to kill other PCs.

So it goes with metagaming. This notion that somehow it's the DM's fault for bad acting among the player's is the biggest shift off blame I've seen. Again, if player killing or thieving from players or metagaming or whatever work in your game, then so be it. In my group, we have a social contract against those things, and everyone is able to (and desires to) adhere to it.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Maxperson]

Reporting from the sick bed.

Ugh! Hope you feel better soon. My wife and I are finishing up bouts of bronchitis.

We as SMs also set the stage and make it possible for PCs to steal from and kill other PCs. We expect them not to do so. If they do, then they are not welcome in the kind of game I run. It is the player's fault, not my fault as the DM, if they try to kill other PCs.

Exactly. I'm not getting why [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is so against the concept of personal accountability.

So it goes with metagaming. This notion that somehow it's the DM's fault for bad acting among the player's is the biggest shift off blame I've seen.

It's yuge! Alternative facts even.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In a few hours I've already missed dozens of posts, so this is almost thread necromancy, but I need to respond to this one.

I'm honestly confused how you concluded that is what I think. I don't think people have to be constrained in how that act out their character. I assume it's my fault for not being clear, but let me give it another shot.

This started when Aaron and I were discussing an example, where a rogue is separated from his party, wanders into a dungeon, and is drowned by a water trap. All the players are at the table to hear the DM run this situation with the rogue. But of course, their players were not there in the dungeon at the time. So, a few hours later in game time, the rest of the players go into the dungeon, and the mage, right before getting to where the water trap is, casts breathe underwater, even though the mage perceived no signs that there was a trap there to begin with, much less a water trap.

All I was saying was I feel personally that that is a clear example of metagaming, and the wizard should not have known about the trap, and to prepare the perfect spell immediately beforehand is a form of meta-game powergaming, and (in my opinion) not in the spirit of role-playing.

But, not everyone agrees with me about role-playing and whether that was wrong or not. So to each their own, play it how you want to play it. I was just giving some arguments to back up my belief.

But I never, ever said the way a person role-plays their character in general has to be constrained. If you want to have a wood elf have whatever traits or personality you want, by all means go for it. Totally allowed in my games. All I'm saying is, it's a little off-putting to me that a character can just know a trap is there by fiat just because they overheard the DM telling another player's character about it earlier.

That's all. Not sure why people think I'm saying you can't create your character and backstory however you want. And again, I'm not saying you have to do it my way regarding the meta-game knowledge, I'm just saying this is how I and my group do it, and these are the reasons why.

I think most people are with you that the story told by the OP is..."wrong". Certainly no argument from me, there.

And we can debate about whether or not the term "metagaming" applies, but I'll agree with you that it was using knowledge the characters wouldn't have to the detriment of at least one person's fun.

But then you keep going, and somehow conclude that this about roleplaying vs. not-roleplaying. "Powergaming" you even called it. That's odd in this particular case (PvP, sure. Being a jerk, sure. But powergaming?) and it suggests to me that you are equating the kind of being-in-character, not-using-player-information sort of playing as "roleplaying" and all other forms as "powergaming."

A few posts/pages back you responded to Iserith with:

And while for you, role-playing is nothing more than "I'm a fighter and that's my role," as though you're playing a board game and you are the smasher role, while someone else is the healer role.

It's pretty hard to not conclude that you truly don't understand that there are forms of roleplaying other than "pretend you are your character". No, not other forms of playing RPGs. Other forms of roleplaying. Other forms which, speaking as somebody who has tried your form, are harder to achieve but are also more immersive and more engaging.

You're not alone. There are numerous other posters who also truly don't seem to get it. But I wish you (and the others) would stop for a moment and at least ask if this could be true, and stop dismissing an opposing viewpoint as coming from non-roleplaying powergamers.

 

[iserith]

Reporting from the sick bed. We as SMs also set the stage and make it possible for PCs to steal from and kill other PCs. We expect them not to do so. If they do, then they are not welcome in the kind of game I run. It is the player's fault, not my fault as the DM, if they try to kill other PCs.

So it goes with metagaming. This notion that somehow it's the DM's fault for bad acting among the player's is the biggest shift off blame I've seen. Again, if player killing or thieving from players or metagaming or whatever work in your game, then so be it. In my group, we have a social contract against those things, and everyone is able to (and desires to) adhere to it.

Like [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION], I run it where the DM delegates to the target player the right to narrate the outcome of another PC's attempt to hinder or attack his or her character. It creates a situation where such play only occurs by consent. In practice, it usually means PVP stops altogether. Like presenting situations where "metagaming" of the "negative" variety simply cannot occur, the DM has the ability to stop this before it becomes a problem just by running the game a particular way with no onus being placed on the players to behave in a particular way.

Again, it starts with the DM.

 

[iserith]

Exactly. I'm not getting why [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is so against the concept of personal accountability.

Speaking as a DM, I am pro-personal responsibility. Meaning the DM can handle it as I have already stated and, if one is the sort to really give a flumph about "metagaming," probably should. Failing to do so and them blaming the players for "metagaming" is a lack of personal accountability in my view.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Pretending not to know, for an experienced player, is and always will be part of the game - and a fact of life - if there's to be any level of immersion in the thought process of your character(s) as they discover and learn about the game world and what's in it...and how best (or worst) to deal with it.

This convinces me that you also really have no idea what roleplaying can be. That you have no idea what "immersion" is, or can be.

The only time I "pretend not to know" anything is if somebody else at the table truly does not know, and the not knowing is something that adds excitement to the game. But I don't pretend* thus because it somehow makes my experience richer, or more challenging. It doesn't. The only challenge in that is in continuing to pretend.

If pretending worked, I would revisit all my old favorite logic puzzles and pretend I don't know the answer so that I could experience the joy of solving them again. Just think how much fun it would be to see Star Wars again, if I could pretend I don't know what happens! And re-reading Tolkien. Ah, it would be nice.

But, alas, it doesn't make logic puzzles or movies or novels any richer, and it doesn't make RPGs any richer. It just wastes time getting to the parts that do make RPGs richer.

*Anymore, that is. I did used to play your way. Long ago.

 

[machineelf]

In a few hours I've already missed dozens of posts, so this is almost thread necromancy, but I need to respond to this one.



I think most people are with you that the story told by the OP is..."wrong". Certainly no argument from me, there.

And we can debate about whether or not the term "metagaming" applies, but I'll agree with you that it was using knowledge the characters wouldn't have to the detriment of at least one person's fun.

But then you keep going, and somehow conclude that this about roleplaying vs. not-roleplaying. "Powergaming" you even called it. That's odd in this particular case (PvP, sure. Being a jerk, sure. But powergaming?) and it suggests to me that you are equating the kind of being-in-character, not-using-player-information sort of playing as "roleplaying" and all other forms as "powergaming."

A few posts/pages back you responded to Iserith with:


It's pretty hard to not conclude that you truly don't understand that there are forms of roleplaying other than "pretend you are your character". No, not other forms of playing RPGs. Other forms of roleplaying. Other forms which, speaking as somebody who has tried your form, are harder to achieve but are also more immersive and more engaging.

You're not alone. There are numerous other posters who also truly don't seem to get it. But I wish you (and the others) would stop for a moment and at least ask if this could be true, and stop dismissing an opposing viewpoint as coming from non-roleplaying powergamers.

I mean I think I get it. You may have a broader definition of role-playing than I do. People can play it however they want. They don't have to have a backstory. They don't have to have flaws or personality quirks. Heck, they don't even have to have a name for their character. They don't have to relate to NPCs the way their character, and all his quirks, would. Int and Wis and Char scores don't have to mean anything other than the mechanical effect they provide in skill checks and saving throws.

There are tons of different ways a person could "role play". My preferred way (for me and the games I enjoy) stick to the traditional way role playing has been understood in D&D from the beginning: your character has traits, and attributes and quirks that define him or her, and you play that role accordingly: hence, role playing.

You accuse me of having a narrow view of role playing. Fair. I guess I do, but my view its how role playing had been explained in D&D material since the start. Have you considered that your more broad view of the concept doesn't afford a lot of credit to the traditional understanding of the concept of role playing in D&D?

But again, it bothers me not one iota how you choose to play your game at your table.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk