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

[Maxperson]

Wait a sec...you've been arguing forever (not just in this thread) that true roleplaying is acting out what your character "would do" (whatever that means) and that pretending to not know stuff (such as the trolls/fire thing) is really fun.

And now suddenly that's boring?

No.

I'm confused.

That would explain why you get things so wrong.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Of course it does. Tons of things about the game limit the players' choices. They only get 1 race. That's a limit. They can't change their race on the fly. That's a limit. Strength determines how much they can carry. That's a limit. Limits are not inherently bad.

The most beneficial course of action would be to poof into a god and just will the enemy to die. Again, limits are not inherently bad.

Once again, in your examples you are conflating declaring actions with...well, everything. The only thing we low-down, dirty, stinking metagamers are advocating for is that the player and only the player gets to decide what his player is thinking and doing. The DM gets to decide how effective it is.

So as a player I am free to declare, "My character poofs into a god* and wills the enemy to die." The DM can then respond with, "Ok, you spend your action concentrating really hard but nothing happens" or "How do you do that?" or whatever. The player is free to try it; the DM adjudicates the result.

Likewise with strength determining how much they carry. "I pick up the elephant." "Ok, roll Strength. Um...no you don't."

Choosing a race while creating a character is not an action of the character, so it's irrelevant. Changing race on the fly I suppose you could argue is a character action, but it falls into the same category as poofing into a god. The right to try it isn't the same as the right to succeed.

Now let's get back to the trolls: the player says, "I'm going to pick up a torch and hit the troll with it." The DM can say, "There aren't any torches" or "it suddenly starts raining so hard that the torches go out" or maybe the DM even decides suddenly that these trolls are immune to fire and instead have a deadly lactose intolerance or peanut allergy or whatever. I'm not saying I would think highly of that style of DMing, but at least none of those choices take away player agency.

What does take away player agency is, "No, you may not do that because your character wouldn't do that." "You don't know about trolls so you wouldn't use fire" is just as arbitrary and controlling as "You have a 14 Intelligence so you know you can't pick up the elephant, so therefore I'm not even going to allow you to try."

*Which sounds dirty, by the way.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That would explain why you get things so wrong.

That hurts, Max. Really, it does.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Of course it does. Tons of things about the game limit the players' choices. They only get 1 race. That's a limit. They can't change their race on the fly. That's a limit. Strength determines how much they can carry. That's a limit. Limits are not inherently bad.

Of course not. But those examples you have all have a pretty significant difference...they are not options that would otherwise be available to a player. And they aren't subject to a DM judgment about meta knowledge.

So instead of providing absurd examples that don't really apply, wouldn't it be better to look at the impact this could have on play?

The most beneficial course of action would be to poof into a god and just will the enemy to die. Again, limits are not inherently bad.

Again, this is absurd. The DM does not remove the "poof I'm a god option" from the player....it's never an option. Hitting a troll with acid or fire or a werewolf with silver is an option, provided those materials are at hand.

So in this case, the DM is stepping in and actively taking away existing options from the player, yes? Do you agree with that distinction?

For myself and many others, yes. For you, I'm guessing not.

More important than fun?

I don't want to sound snarky, but do you realize what you said?

What's fun about playing your character, instead of playing a character that knows everything, even things it couldn't or shouldn't know? Lots. For me, having my PCs simply know virtually everything about the game would be boring as hell.

But there's no reason to go to such extremes. I'm talking about a character knowing fire hurts a troll, not a character who knows everything. Now I am not saying that there should be no separation of character knowledge and player knowledge....I'm all for that when it matters. I attempt to make such separations when I play, and I expect the same from my players.

But...I recognize that it is impossible to do so at all times. And I also realize there are times when we cannot say that such a failure to separate player and character knowledge has occurred. In such instances, I simply let it slide rather than consider it cheating.

However, my comments about a player pretending to not know what he does was more in the context of an encounter. It's not about playing the role of the character overall in the developing story of the game...that's fine, of course. What I mean though is as a player, if I'm in a new campaign and playing a low level character, and we run into what seems to be a troll....then I hope that there are more interesting elements to the encounter than simply the DM watching for the players to metagame.

There should be some cool terrain, or some innocent bystander NPCs that must be kept safe, or something else that makes this encounter worth playing. If the only thing the encounter had going for it is "pretend you don't know about the fire vulnerability until the DM somehow allows you to know" then it's a weak encounter. And I don't think that me having my character continue to hack the regenerating troll with my sword because I don't know about fire is really a great example of role playing.

It only taunts some people. If you don't like it, don't play that way.

Well, I don't, but that's because I'm lucky enough to have likeminded players and DMs in my group. Not all of us are so lucky.

And I think you missed my point about "taunting". These "pretend you don't know" scenarios involve metagaming so much more. They totally rely on it. All of the players who have the forbidden knowledge have to adjust their thinking. Instead of just "what would my character do" they have to ask "what would my character do given that he doesn't know what I do".

Better to avoid that additional wrinkle, no?

 

[Maxperson]

Once again, in your examples you are conflating declaring actions with...well, everything.

You made this about limits, not just actions. I responded with limits and actions. If you don't want things discussed, don't bring them up.

The only thing we low-down, dirty, stinking metagamers are advocating for is that the player and only the player gets to decide what his player is thinking and doing.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. And I've never said that the player can't say what the player is thinking. This is about characters and what those characters do and do not know.

Now let's get back to the trolls: the player says, "I'm going to pick up a torch and hit the troll with it." The DM can say, "There aren't any torches" or "it suddenly starts raining so hard that the torches go out" or maybe the DM even decides suddenly that these trolls are immune to fire and instead have a deadly lactose intolerance or peanut allergy or whatever. I'm not saying I would think highly of that style of DMing, but at least none of those choices take away player agency.

I'm curious about this. How is the DM creating a situation where your attempt will always fail not the same as saying no?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Not so. They have correctly determined that their character does not know that information and are choosing something that their character does know.

The problem here is that choosing a particular action doesn't actually require special knowledge in most cases - explicitly so in the case of using fire against a troll when the character has no idea what the creature actually is, because fire is effective as a weapon against more creatures than not - so the player is still "choosing something that their character does know" in examples you have specifically told me are metagaming.

The character is not acting on that information, since the character doesn't know it.

If the character can't be acting on information that the character doesn't have, explain to me how my character is acting upon my knowledge that the monster they face is a troll and that trolls are more readily killed with use of fire - which my character doesn't know - is acting upon this knowledge, and thus I am "metagaming"?

It's a player only choice. The character is not choosing to act based on knowledge of the wraith.

Then you are creating a false dichotomy between choosing a beneficial action that the character could choose given what the character knows, and choosing a less beneficial action that the character could choose given what the character knows. And you are policing your player's thoughts, since that is the only possible way to flag one as "metagaming" rather than standard role-playing.

Justifications designed to cover cheating don't stop it from being cheating.

Yeah, and your justifications designed to cover that you are being unfair to veteran players by declaring them "cheating" when they are only doing things with their characters that you would allow any newbie to do unquestioned doesn't stop what you are doing from being unfair.

Maybe I've been lucky then. The people I play with would be bored running the same thing twice.

You've been lucky because your players are more easily bored? That's the most ridiculous attempt at offensive implication (that implication being that there is something not-lucky about me and/or the players I've had) I've ever seen, because it doesn't even make sense.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, this is absurd. The DM does not remove the "poof I'm a god option" from the player....it's never an option.

Neither is the character using knowledge it does not have. That's as much of an option as poofing into a god.

Hitting a troll with acid or fire or a werewolf with silver is an option, provided those materials are at hand.

Those don't exist in isolation. What the character knows or does not know is a part of whether or not something is an option.

So in this case, the DM is stepping in and actively taking away existing options from the player, yes? Do you agree with that distinction?

No. Cheating is not an option.

More important than fun?

It is fun. Tons of fun.

But there's no reason to go to such extremes. I'm talking about a character knowing fire hurts a troll, not a character who knows everything. Now I am not saying that there should be no separation of character knowledge and player knowledge....I'm all for that when it matters. I attempt to make such separations when I play, and I expect the same from my players.

It matters for every decision. A troll and fire is no different from any other situation where the player has knowledge the PC doesn't have.

But...I recognize that it is impossible to do so at all times. And I also realize there are times when we cannot say that such a failure to separate player and character knowledge has occurred. In such instances, I simply let it slide rather than consider it cheating.

I've never been able to do it accidentally.

However, my comments about a player pretending to not know what he does was more in the context of an encounter. It's not about playing the role of the character overall in the developing story of the game...that's fine, of course. What I mean though is as a player, if I'm in a new campaign and playing a low level character, and we run into what seems to be a troll....then I hope that there are more interesting elements to the encounter than simply the DM watching for the players to metagame.

Encounters are part of the developing story of the game, and often encounters are a part of the character's role. Take a giant hunter. Encounters with giants are a very large part of his role and story.

I agree by the way that there should be other interesting things. I just don't agree that it's okay for the PC to have all the knowledge of monsters that the player does.

There should be some cool terrain, or some innocent bystander NPCs that must be kept safe, or something else that makes this encounter worth playing. If the only thing the encounter had going for it is "pretend you don't know about the fire vulnerability until the DM somehow allows you to know" then it's a weak encounter. And I don't think that me having my character continue to hack the regenerating troll with my sword because I don't know about fire is really a great example of role playing.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the weakness was the only thing going for the encounter. Those other things just don't make it okay to metagame.

Well, I don't, but that's because I'm lucky enough to have likeminded players and DMs in my group. Not all of us are so lucky.

I am, too. People should always strive to play with like minded people.

And I think you missed my point about "taunting". These "pretend you don't know" scenarios involve metagaming so much more. They totally rely on it. All of the players who have the forbidden knowledge have to adjust their thinking. Instead of just "what would my character do" they have to ask "what would my character do given that he doesn't know what I do".

That's not true. I don't do anything other than ask, "What would my character do." What my character would do is based on what he knows. I don't even consider things that he doesn't know, and if it's something he might know, I generally get a roll for it.

Better to avoid that additional wrinkle, no?

I've not encountered that wrinkle. I know my character, his background, skills, prior encounters, etc. It's simplicity to just act on what he does know.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've not encountered that wrinkle. I know my character, his background, skills, prior encounters, etc. It's simplicity to just act on what he does know.

Except that you have, Max.

When I provided my scenario about my fighter character using fire as a means to attack a monster he didn't know anything about - an action you yourself agreed could be done by the character assuming the player also had no idea of the details beyond "I have fire, that is a monster, I want to use fire on the monster." - and the DM insisted, as you have insisted, that I am a 'cheater' because it is 'metagaming' because I have knowledge about trolls, that is the encountering this wrinkle.

You are even going as far as saying that if I really don't want to 'cheat', my list of acceptable actions for my character to take is shortened compared to the list of acceptable actions some other player could have the same character take, because every bit of info I know as an experienced player that can be summed up as "X is is good idea," means I cannot choose whatever action X is. That is the very wrinkle to which [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] is referring - where you take a moment as DM to consider what I know as a player, rather than only considering what my character is actually capable of doing without that knowledge.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Neither is the character using knowledge it does not have. That's as much of an option as poofing into a god.

No, it's different. The second level fighter Jezal being played by 38 year old player Tony, who has been playing D&D for 30 years, may actually know that Trolls are vulnerable to fire. Unless Tony and the DM have a comprehensive list of all the things Jezal knows and a list of what he doesn't know, then it's actually a gray area at the time the troll shows up in the game.

So the DM decides on the spot that Jezal does not know about trolls. This is the DM removing options from the player.

Those don't exist in isolation. What the character knows or does not know is a part of whether or not something is an option.

Sure. And there are times when it's very clear what the character knows or doesn't know...and there are other times where it is not so clear, correct?

No. Cheating is not an option.

This doesn't answer the question. I have since elaborated, so maybe now it is clearer.

Do you see the DM's decision to determine on the spot that Jezal does not know about trolls as limiting Tony's choices as a player? Tony hadn't made a decision what to do yet...we're just looking at the choices available to him. Has the DM limited those choices?

It is fun. Tons of fun.

Immersion can be fun, sure. But it isn't a guarantee of fun. Hence my example of a boring encounter with nothing going for it but the "mystery" of how to hurt trolls.

So, given the choice between immersion and fun, I would say fun is the more important element to maintain.

It matters for every decision. A troll and fire is no different from any other situation where the player has knowledge the PC doesn't have.

Except something like "what's in the next room" when the players have no clues to tell them is easy to determine. If Jezal knows about trolls and fire is not so easy to determine. Folklore would exist in his world. Perhaps he had a cousin who faced a troll once.

Because it involves backstory beyond the scope of the game events it is much harder to determine definitively.

So there is a difference.

I've never been able to do it accidentally.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean you've never accidentally acted on meta-knowledge?

Encounters are part of the developing story of the game, and often encounters are a part of the character's role. Take a giant hunter. Encounters with giants are a very large part of his role and story.

I agree by the way that there should be other interesting things. I just don't agree that it's okay for the PC to have all the knowledge of monsters that the player does.

Sure, I can understand that. I'd say the best way to counter this is to change the monsters up and keep your players guessing rather than having them pretend to not know things they know.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the weakness was the only thing going for the encounter. Those other things just don't make it okay to metagame.

I think I explained this above....immersion in and of itself does not equal fun. But also because if there is more to an encounter...if it's dynamic and has some cool elements...then the matter of Tony having Jezal break out the oil against the trolls is less of a big deal. It doesn't undermine the point of the encounter. It isn't as big a deal to let it slide.

That's not true. I don't do anything other than ask, "What would my character do." What my character would do is based on what he knows. I don't even consider things that he doesn't know, and if it's something he might know, I generally get a roll for it.

I'm speaking from the DM perspective on this. The DM is as familiar with the characters as the players. So creating encounters that hinge upon the disparity between player knowledge and character knowledge is probably a bad idea. Better to design the encounter differently. That's what I meant about avoiding that wrinkle. This is where the DM contributing to metagaming comes into it.

I've not encountered that wrinkle. I know my character, his background, skills, prior encounters, etc. It's simplicity to just act on what he does know.

But there's no way to have an accurate tally of what he knows.

I suppose Skill Checks could serve to help in the gray areas...but I would think that simply allowing PCs to know that trolls are vulnerable to fure is fine. It's no less arbitrary than deciding that they don't know. And more importantly, it keeps the game moving along.

 

[Imaculata]

I have yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument regarding what the actual negative effect would be, of me using metagame knowledge of the weakness of a monster in the game.

Suppose I don't have a 'cover argument' at all to explain why my character is attacking the troll with fire, or the skeleton with a blunt weapon. Suppose I am a filthy cheater, and I use my knowledge as a player to exploit the weakness of an enemy that I have fought a million times before.

What effect does this have on the game?