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

[Satyrn]

Not surprised to see the inevitable 'badwrongfun' responses to anyone being strict about metagaming.

Roleplaying is playing a role - not stepping out of it every time it makes the game less surprising, challenging or difficult.

Metagamers who bring out-of-character knowledge to their characters are flat out cheating. Etc.

Did you really just claim to be insulted then go right on throwing back the exact same insult? I am impressed by your bravado, sir.

 

[Caliburn101]

Did you really just claim to be insulted then go right on throwing back the exact same insult? I am impressed by your bravado, sir.

I in no way claim to be insulted - I found it inevitable. Weary acknowledgement is about as close as I got to feeling insult, as I am not a thin-skinned diva of any variety.

I also didn't insult anyone else - I characterised metagaming as cheating, and then explained why I think this is so.

One thing I do object to is someone asking a question of me and then making a statement immediately thereafter as if my as yet unuttered answer to that question is moot, as you have in your last post.

There would only be 'bravado' as you put it if I was insulted and threw the insult back - which I did not. Would you like to explain?

 

[iserith]

Not surprised to see the inevitable 'badwrongfun' responses to anyone being strict about metagaming.

Roleplaying is playing a role - not stepping out of it every time it makes the game less surprising, challenging or difficult.

A player isn't stepping out of a character's role by swinging a burning log at a troll. That is a thing an adventurer might do. Same with casting a water breathing spell to overcome a water hazard.

Metagamers who bring out-of-character knowledge to their characters are flat out cheating. If there is a perceived grey area, the first thing to do as a player is to ask the GM whether it's ok for you to know the weakness of the monster that will turn the encounter into a smackdown (or whatever) - not to proceed with it like it is a right.

My first thing to do is to roleplay by describing what I want my character to do. That doesn't include asking the DM questions. It might include declaring an action to try to recall lore about a monster's weaknesses to verify my assumptions are correct. But I don't need to in order to take action, although that's smart play in my view.

Your character hasn't read the DMG, the MM or the PH, and shouldn't be played like they have.

Yes, my character probably hasn't read those books. But that's not the only possible explanation for why a character chooses to undertake a particular action.

Let me put it into perspective for you. I as a GM have created a brand new creature not in any published material. One of my players has read the statblock etc. The next game their character acts with this insider knowledge and the monster is defeated quite easily.

DM's fault in my view for basing the difficulty of a challenge on not knowing about a creature, then showing one of the players the stat block.

People who like to metagame have no valid in-game reason to do so.

I don't think that's a sound claim to make. I can come up with lots of reasons why a character might know a thing and then act on it. It is, after all, a game based on imagination. Every time I draw upon my knowledge as a player, I could simply explain why my character knows it in a genre- and context-appropriate manner. Done well, this just fleshes out the character further.

 

[Imaculata]

Roleplaying is playing a role - not stepping out of it every time it makes the game less surprising, challenging or difficult.

I didn't quite understand this sentence.

Metagamers who bring out-of-character knowledge to their characters are flat out cheating. If there is a perceived grey area, the first thing to do as a player is to ask the GM whether it's ok for you to know the weakness of the monster that will turn the encounter into a smackdown (or whatever) - not to proceed with it like it is a right.

This seems like a very old and outdated view on metagaming to me. I think what really matters is if the game is still fair. Are the players using knowledge that undermines the challenge of the game? Or is the DM using knowledge of the players that his npcs's/monsters couldn't possibly have, and thus this feels unfair to them?

What feels unfair will differ from player to player, and obviously we have different views on this. I have a much more lenient view of it, because almost all my players are seasoned D&D-players. I trust them to make the game fun, and I trust my own abilities as a DM enough to know that what ever knowledge the players might think they have about my monsters, is not going to make any of the battles 'unfair' or too easy.

Your character hasn't read the DMG, the MM or the PH, and shouldn't be played like they have.

I don't think it is quite so black and white. D&D is a game, and as such the choices that a player makes will be a combination of his knowledge and intellect as a player, and the knowledge and intellect of his character. The character might know some things that the player doesn't (in which case the DM can provide this knowledge), and the player might know some things that their character doesn't. To what degree they allow their player-knowledge to inform their character's decisions, is really up to the group.

Does the character know all the ways to kill a vampire? Maybe he does, or maybe he doesn't. Is it really up to me as a DM to decide this? Unless there is a very specific lore reason why this knowledge would be unknown, I see no reason to tell the player that his character does not know this. Because I don't think it is a lot of fun to pretend your character is dumber than the player playing him, unless you happen to be deliberately playing a character with a low IQ. I try not to get into metagaming discussions with my players, I just want them to have fun. They are allowed to play the game as smart and strategic as they want. It is not going to undermine the difficulty, or ruin immersion.

Let me put it into perspective for you. I as a GM have created a brand new creature not in any published material. One of my players has read the statblock etc. The next game their character acts with this insider knowledge and the monster is defeated quite easily.

Well isn't this a finely designed convenient situation that doesn't really occur in any of the campaigns I've ever played. You've created your own monster, and some how one of the players has read its stat block? How the hell does that happen?

But apart from that, why the hell would it matter? If my players want, they can read the stat block of any monster I throw at them. It might ruin the surprise for them, so they probably don't want to... but there's nothing in that stat block that is going to fundamentally give them the upper hand on my creatures.

People who like to metagame have no valid in-game reason to do so.

Why would they need one?

If there is something about their character that gives them previously established insider knowledge it has to be agreed with the GM with in-character justifications in place.

That is something you could agree on with your players... or you could do what I do, and just not worry about it.

Sure, sometimes it can happen by accident - that's fine. Doing it deliberately isn't acceptable.

You're describing metagaming as if someone is cheating on his exam. As if there is any ill will involved, and as if there is only one kind of metagaming, and no gray areas.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

I really don't want to wade into this mess, but the last bit here really got me. This is one of those, "too clever by half" arguments that seems great until you unpack it.

Think of it in this context-
Player A cleverly defeats an unpublished monster immediately using it's special code word, "November," that only is in the DM's written notes, and that Player A could only have known by reading them when everyone went to pick up the pizza & beer.

But Elfcrusher responds, "You can't worry about that, because then YOU ARE THE ONES METAGAMING, since you all know that in real life, Player A was alone with the notes while you went for pizza and beer!"

/facepalm

As I wrote above, there are degrees of metagaming (from outright "cheating," aka reading the module ahead of time) to bad behavior (reading up on the monsters you know you will encounter) to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (if you've ever played D&D, you probably know something about D&D trolls and fire) to inevitable knowledge (D&D is a game, with game mechanics), and different tables handle it in different ways.

That said, this isn't a good argument. No offense, but it's kind of third grade, "I know I am, but what are you!!!!"

Well, the argument was facetious (which I thought would be apparent) and, of course, circular. It was meant to illustrate the futility of being upset by this sort of 'metagaming'.

Expressed another way: if neither you nor the other player is genuinely challenged by an encounter, because you both know exactly how to solve it even if neither of your characters should, and you enjoy pretending to be challenged, why does the other player's decision to solve it sooner it rather than later impact your fun? Unless you decide to end that gaming session upon successful resolution of the problem, can't you continue roleplaying in whatever situation occurs next?

If you choose to get all pissy about that person's 'metagaming', what's the reason? Just because it feels wrong to you?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As a general question, do people discussing the "I get to decide that my character knows x fact" issue distinguish based on player knowledge? As far as I can see, it would be just as legitimate to decide that your character just knows how to stop a troll from regenerating, or which statue the treasure is hidden behind even if you as a player don't.

I do the same thing. However, I don't think that we all enjoy the same things and that there are people out there who enjoy finding hidden secrets. It's not a mistake to for them to play that way. That means that it's not inherently a mistake to hide secrets. Whether it is a mistake or not depends entirely on the group at hand.

Indeed. The mystery/puzzle-solving aspect of D&D is something that I enjoy, as is trying to look at things through my character's perspective. I'd certainly look askance at a player looking up creature stats or adventure modules and basing their character's actions upon what they found there.
It gets trickier however when you have players who have memorised the MM or have already read the adventure (perhaps because they are a DM themselves). A player who prides themselves on their system mastery might chafe at not being able to apply what they know in-game, and so lose enjoyment when the party start wasting time searching an area that she knows doesn't contain anything of interest. Under discussion is whether she has the right to direct them to search only in the places that she knows contain treasure of interest, and what sort of justification is required for using that player knowledge through their character.

Metagamers who bring out-of-character knowledge to their characters are flat out cheating. If there is a perceived grey area, the first thing to do as a player is to ask the GM whether it's ok for you to know the weakness of the monster that will turn the encounter into a smackdown (or whatever) - not to proceed with it like it is a right.

I think a lot of the discussion here is revolving around what is OOC knowledge and what isn't? At what point does "reasonable general knowledge for the character" become "need a DC X ability/skill check" become "its not really reasonable to that character to have any idea about that."
And where does player agency in deciding what their character knows fall on that line?

Hence, as you say, if you think that there is a grey area: ask.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

As a general question, do people discussing the "I get to decide that my character knows x fact" issue distinguish based on player knowledge? As far as I can see, it would be just as legitimate to decide that your character just knows how to stop a troll from regenerating, or which statue the treasure is hidden behind even if you as a player don't.

I'm not sure I fully understand the question as it seems like it is missing something. But a statement of what a character knows is really just what he or she believes. Until it is corroborated, it may or may not be true. It's not on me as DM to police what a character believes.

Under discussion is whether she has the right to direct them to search only in the places that she knows contain treasure of interest, and what sort of justification is required for using that player knowledge through their character.

I would say she has the right to direct the party as he or she pleases, though the party is under no obligation to comply. (I do, however, encourage players to accept and add onto the suggestions of others.) No justification is required in my view for the player's choice for his or her character.

At what point does "reasonable general knowledge for the character" become "need a DC X ability/skill check" become "its not really reasonable to that character to have any idea about that."
And where does player agency in deciding what their character knows fall on that line?

In my view, a player is free to establish what the character believes. If the player declares that the character is trying to recall useful lore, I may decide that calls for an ability check (as with any other fictional action declaration). I could decide that an action to recall lore is an automatic failure, but that circumstance will be rare indeed. I think if it's not an automatic success, it's at least worth a roll in almost all cases. Note, however, that an action based on knowledge that it is not established the character has is as valid as any other action declaration. I only need to know what you want to do and what you hope to accomplish to adjudicate - not how you arrived at the decision to do that (though of course you're welcome to share if you want).

 

[Satyrn]

I in no way claim to be insulted - I found it inevitable. Weary acknowledgement is about as close as I got to feeling insult, as I am not a thin-skinned diva of any variety.

I also didn't insult anyone else - I characterised metagaming as cheating, and then explained why I think this is so.

One thing I do object to is someone asking a question of me and then making a statement immediately thereafter as if my as yet unuttered answer to that question is moot, as you have in your last post.

There would only be 'bravado' as you put it if I was insulted and threw the insult back - which I did not. Would you like to explain?

Several times you say how the game should be played, and say that people who don't play that way are cheating. That reads to me as you saying they're having badwrongfun, the exact same thing you are weary of being told.