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

[hawkeyefan]

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?

In my experience, it would move things along.

 

[Lanefan]

Please do. I agree that some of the mechanics of how an RPG story gets woven is different from how a book or movie script gets written, but good storytelling is good storytelling, no?

Well, yes and no. Good storytelling in a movie or novel is, I think, most of the time* quite different than good storytelling in an RPG. In a movie or novel there's a predefined plot, plot-protected key characters who only do anything if it serves the story, and almost invariably the heroes or sympathetic characters win in the end; a end which is predetermined by the author. Very static.

In an RPG there's often little or no predefined plot, key characters are not plot-protected (or shouldn't be), and the heroes/sympathetic characters (in this case the PCs) may very well lose. Not only is the endpoint always in motion (if ever defined at all), the next chapter and even the next sentence is always moving based on what happens right now...which isn't pre-determined* either. Nobody knows how good or bad the story - or the telling of it - is going to turn out until it's all looked at in hindsight. Very fluid.

* - the exception, of course, is those instances where a DM is running a hard-coded railroad in which the PCs just play out her mostly-pre-scripted scenes: a novel disguised as an RPG. Henceforth I'll ignore this type of game for purposes of this discussion.

So, how does any of this factor into a discussion on metagaming? Well, tangentially at best; when asking the question "does metagaming make for a better story?" or some variant thereof. My answer would be that sometimes it probably does and other times it probably doesn't; but even in those instances where it does any story benefits in hindsight are outweighed by the loss of enjoyment in the actual play of the game at the time.

Why does it have to be "most likely"? (And what does that even mean?) Shouldn't it be "most interesting thing they could plausibly do"?

Not necessarily. Another difference between a novel / movie and an RPG is that in an RPG you're telling the story from the inside, as it were...living it out from within using the perspective of your character rather than objectively observing and chronicling it from afar using a perspective of omniscience. As such you quite likely don't know what your "most interesting" next move might be but you probably do know the next move that flows most naturally out of both a)your last move and b) the surrounding environment, in a vaguely logical sequence: this is your "most likely" next move. An omniscient observer might know the most interesting move but the character is almost never omniscient and thus needs must use what limited information its own point of view gives it. Otherwise the character becomes a pawn.

And if you-as-player think there's more information to be had from your character's point of view than you've been given, ask the DM to either provide it or explain its absence; and such explaination can legitimately include "there's no way you could know that" and-or "you rolled to perceive that, and this <true or false> information is what you perceived".

Oh, sure, the player's decision might screw up a plan that the DM had and therefore might not lead to the best story. But we have to at least trust that everybody...players and DM...are trying to weave the best story they can.

Assuming that a "good story" is everyone's top-of-mind end goal. I know as a player mine often isn't...in character I'm just going to do or say whatever seems to make sense to that character in the moment, based on what it knows and how it views its world (alignment, established personality, etc.), and let the story - for better or worse - sort itself out later.

And maybe that's the key difference between the two viewpoints here: our assumptions about the other people at the table.

Or, perhaps, our own ideas as to what we want form the game and how we're willing to try and achieve it?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

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?

If it's a game I'm in? It breaks my immersion wall. It also cheapens a challenge being faced - usually for the first time - by these particular characters. And it denies me the opportunity to both watch and participate in the trial-and-error or even trial-and-failure learning process those characters go through as neophyte adventurers.

And in a game with players new to D&D who maybe don't know up from down compared to your experience, you're denying those players the same trial-and-error learning process.

Lan-"you as player may have fought these things a million times before, but your character hasn't; which makes all the difference"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

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

Oh, I don't know about that...

Didn't you hear about the new "Divine Poof" feat that came out in last week's update from WotC?






Lan-"poof!"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Something of a tangent to the debate about which players do/do not enjoy permission to declare their PCs attack the trolls with fire - I prefer a RPG where the players and the GM, in the heat of action declaration, don't really have to think about the quality of the story at all.

I prefer it if the player has to think primarily about what his/her PC would do (and the build/backstory of the PC plus the play of the game should provide answers to that question); and the GM is thinking primarily about what obstacles/antagonists oppose the PC in this, and how; and then we roll the dice and see what happens. And it is that "what" - the what happens/I] - that is a good story.

Not all RPGs ensure that the what happens in these circumstances will be a good story. I like the ones that do.

 

[Imaculata]

If it's a game I'm in? It breaks my immersion wall. It also cheapens a challenge being faced - usually for the first time - by these particular characters.

Does the challenge really rely on knowing the monster's weakness though? And why would you as a DM want to set up your encounter this way?

And it denies me the opportunity to both watch and participate in the trial-and-error or even trial-and-failure learning process those characters go through as neophyte adventurers.

Is trial and error fun?

 

[Lanefan]

Does the challenge really rely on knowing the monster's weakness though? And why would you as a DM want to set up your encounter this way?

Well, sooner or later most normal adventuring parties are going to meet skeletons, and trolls, and werewolves, and all sorts of other creatures that have specific weaknesses. Part of the challenge-mitigation is that weakness, which means in theory these creatures *should* be more of a challenge when met for the first time.

And it's not like skeletons can't be beaten without knowing their weakness...it just takes longer.

Is trial and error fun?

Often, yes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sensing in some of your posts (and those of some others here) an underlying dislike of parties or characters failing, or being able to fail, or being set up to fail. True? Not true?

The "heroes" don't - and probably shouldn't - always win.

Lanefan

 

[Caliburn101]

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?

It trivialises the challenge, and without challenge, the game is dull and ultimately unsatisfying.

By your logic on this issue, the GM could show the characters the adventure module, hand out stats of all the monsters and then pack up and go home.

I can honestly say that I personally don't know any players or GMs, nor have I known any that would agree that knowing everything in advance will nevertheless lead to a fun adventure.

If there is no mystery in a story, the story fails to connect with people - it's a central tenet of drama, and roleplaying uses the rules of drama to deliver the fun. No struggle, no sense of achievement, no challenge, no fun.

If you honestly don't get that, then there is no point continuing our little sub-debate, as we clearly have irreconcilable positions.

I have to say though, I am genuinely surprised about that.

 

[Imaculata]

Well, sooner or later most normal adventuring parties are going to meet skeletons, and trolls, and werewolves, and all sorts of other creatures that have specific weaknesses. Part of the challenge-mitigation is that weakness, which means in theory these creatures *should* be more of a challenge when met for the first time.

Yes, but that didn't quite answer my question. Does the challenge of these creatures rely on their specific weakness (or immunity)?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sensing in some of your posts (and those of some others here) an underlying dislike of parties or characters failing, or being able to fail, or being set up to fail. True? Not true?

I have no idea how or where you are getting that impression. In my campaigns, a player can always attempt to do anything they want. Whether they succeed or fail, is up to me as a DM. If an action is impossible to succeed, then the players fail at it, no roll needed.

If anything, what I do is challenge some common presumptions that some posters on this forum assume to be set in stone. I like challenging such ideas, because sometimes it makes people think whether their presumptions are justified.

It trivialises the challenge, and without challenge, the game is dull and ultimately unsatisfying.

I'm not convinced that it does. Is a werewolf not a formidable opponent, even if you do know its weakness to silver? Or what about a pack of werewolves attacking the party at night? At what point does the weakness to silver become trivial, and the encounter itself the vocal point? And shouldn't we as DM's focus more on setting up these sorts of encounters that are challenging in their own right, without the need for artificial gotcha mechanics?

By your logic on this issue, the GM could show the characters the adventure module, hand out stats of all the monsters and then pack up and go home.

Is this sort of absurd exaggeration what any of these discussions inevitably lead to? Is it impossible to argue with reasonable arguments, rather than taking everything to the extreme just to try and win an argument?

I can honestly say that I personally don't know any players or GMs, nor have I known any that would agree that knowing everything in advance will nevertheless lead to a fun adventure.

I never said that the players should know EVERYTHING in advance. All I said is that the secrecy of monster immunities and weaknesses isn't very important to me. The challenge in my encounters does not rely on them. How do you get from a reasonable position as that, to this extreme? You know that's not what I said, so why even go there?

I have to say though, I am genuinely surprised about that.

Strawmen often are surprising. It must be their high initiative. But if you're done beating up the argument that I did not put forward, can we perhaps address the argument that I did make? Which is as follows:

Do creature immunities and weaknesses need to be kept a secret in order for the creatures themselves to be a challenge? Does the challenge of an encounter with these creatures rely purely on the players not knowing, or pretending not to know, what they are weak against? Or can these creatures be just as much of a challenge if you DO know their weaknesses and immunities?

 

[Caliburn101]

But that means you admit there are steps. So your players must constantly walk on eggshells, fearing they will take that one step too far and be chastised for being a dirty metagamer?

... a great theory you have there, but after over three decades of playing and primarily GM'ing with a whole lot of people I can count on one hand the number of times I've felt the need to pull someone up on metagaming.

This debate is a storm in a teacup and a mountain made from a molehill really - it just isn't the prevalent issue assumed here.