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

[Lanefan]

It would be difficult to justify why an "innocent" old woman who needs help from the party even had time to monologue before being cut down.

Where are you getting a monologue from? It's not mentioned in the example - all it says is the rogue goes to the house and gets trapped in a dungeon (probably by my old favourite, the chute trap). He may never have encountered anybody at all before getting trapped.

And on the other hand if she did offer something more tangible then xp, maybe the Player of the Rogue just needs to learn his lesson about wandering off alone. You know that would never have happened if the Player had just meta-gamed instead of roleplaying his character to his doom, right?

Not sure if you're being facetious here. If not, how would the player meta-game his way out of hitting a trap?

What's unclear about the example is whether the rogue-trap incident was played out by note/in private or in front of the whole table.

In my opinion, the players should play their characters however they feel their character would act in the situation. Me knowing the players know what happened to the rogue has no bearing on what the characters know, so if the characters are just doing things they could do with what knowledge they do have - such as be very suspicious, and even assume wrong-doing on the part of the witch, up to an including guessing correctly about what exactly went down - I don't see any problem. They know the rogue went off alone and hasn't returned, so even if they don't know where the rogue was going they have an explanation for their worries.

But that is where I keep finding disagreement with this old definition of metagaming - people let knowing what the player knows distract them from even considering that the character didn't need to know it to do what they have done.

Coincidences can happen, sure...but how often? How often do they have to guess just exactly the right thing to do at the right time before it really isn't coincidence any more?

Lan-"welcome, my little pretties"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree. Because isn't part of the whole game trying to make good decisions, and trying to avoid death for your character?

But those good decisions and death avoidance should come from in-character information only rather than out-of-character information.

So it seems to me that beating the game, or getting an advantage over it, is part of the game's goal

But is it?

(along with just having fun, and an exciting adventure)

On these two clauses I think we can all agree.

So this is where I think Iserith is correct to point out that metagaming seems encouraged by the game, because we all want to win don't we? Now of course there is a big difference between cheating (by for example reading the campaign module) and just thinking like a player.

And that right there is the difference: I'd rather think like a character, not a player.

And I think perhaps a more important question could be asked: Does it really matter if the players act upon their knowledge that the crone is a villain? So what if she doesn't drop them into her dungeon... what does it matter? Why make a big deal out of it?

They may well already know or suspect her villainousness for other reasons and be on their guard in general...but it doesn't mean they know about that specific trap at all.

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

What's unclear about the example is whether the rogue-trap incident was played out by note/in private or in front of the whole table.

Lets assume the rogue-trap incident is played out in front of the whole table. Because that's kind of the point of the example: Are the other players allowed to act upon their knowledge of what happened to the rogue?

And that right there is the difference: I'd rather think like a character, not a player.

Why not both?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Coincidences can happen, sure...but how often? How often do they have to guess just exactly the right thing to do at the right time before it really isn't coincidence any more?

That brings up another problem I keep having with this conversations.

I keep thinking that because a single incident is being mentioned in singular language that we are talking about a single instance - or rather, multiple examples that are each a single incident.

...and then people act like I'm talking about some number of incidents - I don't know what number, as it usually isn't mentioned, and when it is mentioned it seems to be "all" - and as a result don't seem to understand what I am talking about.

I am, to be clear, talking about any given single instance, and my thoughts on any given single instance do not expand beyond that singe instance.

As for the idea that there is some threshold at which a perfectly acceptable behavior becomes unacceptable... I can't decide one.

 

[Lanefan]

Lets assume the rogue-trap incident is played out in front of the whole table. Because that's kind of the point of the example: Are the other players allowed to act upon their knowledge of what happened to the rogue?

Why not both?

Because as soon as I start thinking like me and not like my character I'm not playing my character any more, I'm playing a pawn. And I'll freely admit that this happens to me sometimes...I just try to stop myself when I realize I'm doing it, and get back into character.

And yes, sometimes that means roleplaying my character into disasters that as player I can see coming from miles off.

Lan-"or roleplaying myself right out of the party - done that a few times"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I am, to be clear, talking about any given single instance, and my thoughts on any given single instance do not expand beyond that singe instance.

Where mine do; I'll use a single instance as an example to illustrate a pattern of play.

As for the idea that there is some threshold at which a perfectly acceptable behavior becomes unacceptable... I can't decide one.

The division we have is whether it's ever "perfectly acceptable" at all.

Maybe you can shrug it off as coincidence once, but the red flags go up. A second time? Problem.

Lanefan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Where mine do; I'll use a single instance as an example to illustrate a pattern of play.

Whenever you do that, please note that others will not realize you are talking about a pattern the single instance might be a part of unless you are actually specific that you are talking about a pattern.

There is a huge difference between, for example, saying that it isn't okay for a player to role-play a character guessing a single detail correctly if the player knows that detail, and saying that it isn't okay for a player to role-play a character that has never guessed any details incorrectly unless they were details the player also didn't know.

It would make discussion nearly meaningless if you aren't being clear which of those two you mean, or were treating them as being the same.

The division we have is whether it's ever "perfectly acceptable" at all.

It [the division] certainly shouldn't be. It is plainly obvious that it should be perfectly acceptable in at least some instances... otherwise we step into official support of the paradox that actions a completely new and unknowing player could have their character perform, are declared "unacceptable" for an experienced and knowledgeable player to have their character perform, even if the character in question is the same between the two of them. Which is, by the way, a paradox because the reason those actions would be "unacceptable" is because the player cannot role-play the character guessing something that the player knows, and the reason why that is true is because the DM knows that the player knows - so the player's knowledge is being used to determine the character takes, which is the very thing that the DM is claiming is "unacceptable" in the first place.

Maybe you can shrug it off as coincidence once, but the red flags go up. A second time? Problem.

What "red flags"? There is no inherent quality of role-playing a character as doing something that it is possible that character could be doing in a given situation that carries a "red flag" - the flags you are seeing are flags that you put in place.

 

[Imaculata]

Because as soon as I start thinking like me and not like my character I'm not playing my character any more, I'm playing a pawn. And I'll freely admit that this happens to me sometimes...I just try to stop myself when I realize I'm doing it, and get back into character.

Suppose my character hears there are skeletons in the woods, and I decide that my character (who has never fought skeletons) wants to bring a blunt weapon. Is this the point where the DM should step in and say something? Because I am obviously relying on my knowledge of skeletons as a player here.

I might have a good explanation why my character wants to bring a blunt weapon. But even if I didn't, another player with no knowledge about the game's mechanics could also choose to bring a blunt weapon. Should the DM make an exception here? Are the actions that a character is allowed to take, determined by the knowledge of the player?

I think what I'm getting at here, is the question: Why would it be wrong to play my character as if controlling a pawn? Can you not play your character as a pawn AND also role play at the same time?

 

[Maxperson]

And yet to me it sounds like telling someone not to steal your car, and leaving the car door wide open, with the key already in the ignition.

You're mishearing things. I'm telling my players not to steal my car, which is locked and with no keys. What I didn't do, is remove the battery like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] thinks I should do in order to prevent them from stealing the care. Nor am I engaging in [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s victim mentality and taking responsibility for someone else breaking into my car and hot wiring it.

It sounds like you are telling your players not to metagame, and yet taking no steps to make metagaming a none-issue. Why not do both? Take the steps to make metagaming no longer affect the game, so you don't have to warn your players at all.

Because I refuse to engage in the victim mentality. It's really twisted thinking to blame the victim for what the attacker does. This is the same argument that blames the woman who was assaulted, because she wore a low cut top. If only she'd worn something else, it wouldn't have happened. The only difference between that and metagaming is degree. Think about that for a while.

The latter is how I run my campaigns. I tell my players not to worry about metagaming, and ensure them that I will do my best to defy their expectations, and keep them on their toes. Nothing in my campaign will be predictable, and I throw in custom monsters, and change existing monsters, so there's no difference between what the new players know about my monsters (which is nothing), and what the experienced players think they know from their years of playing.

Cool. That's you. Me, I don't have to since it's not my responsibility to keep the players from cheating. It's their responsibility not to cheat.

I agree with Iserith that the game by its very nature seems set up to encourage metagaming. The game has a lot of gotcha mechanics to it, where players are forced to separate their knowledge as a player, from their knowledge as their character. Perhaps to a lesser degree now, than in older editions. But its still there. I don't get why it is still a thing.

"Gotcha" isn't inherently bad. It depends on how it is used.

 

[Maxperson]

In my opinion, the players should play their characters however they feel their character would act in the situation. Me knowing the players know what happened to the rogue has no bearing on what the characters know, so if the characters are just doing things they could do with what knowledge they do have - such as be very suspicious, and even assume wrong-doing on the part of the witch, up to an including guessing correctly about what exactly went down - I don't see any problem. They know the rogue went off alone and hasn't returned, so even if they don't know where the rogue was going they have an explanation for their worries.

There's a rather large difference between...

Players: "Gotlost went missing in this area and hasn't returned. We want to know if you've seen him?" - Not metagaming.

And...

Players: "Gotlost came here last night and fell through your trap door. We know you have him, so give him back to us or else." - Metagaming.