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

[iserith]

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 agree, hence this scenario right here.

 

[jasper]

When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No."

C'mon. All Evil Overlords should have gotten the memo by now!

um master. you would have gotten the memo but you shot the last 33 fed ex guys for bringing you bad news

 

[iserith]

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.

That's why, when running games for experienced players in the catacombs (or whatever), you put skeletons in burial niches high above, raining bone arrows down on the PCs. It's harder to hit them with blunt weapons that way (but not impossible). And you stick the trolls in a swamp filled with explosive gases. And you have the price of silvered weapons be quite high in areas with werewolves (due to high demand) or otherwise make getting one's hands on silvered weapons a challenge in and of itself.

That would also be fun for inexperienced players, no doubt.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is where I start to break with iserith a bit. I don't think you need to objectively demonstrate the fun of trying to figure out monster vulnerabilities through trial and error. If one player at the table thinks it's fun then the generous thing for the others to do is withhold their knowledge. It might be that the fun isn't in the trial and error per se, but in the fear & uncertainty caused by genuinely not knowing the solution.

That said...
1) It shouldn't have to be trial and error. The DM could also provide (or have previously provided) clues.
2) If the other characters would know the secret, then it's part of the story for them to reveal it. (Where disagreement comes in is whether the players simply get to declare that their characters know, or whether such knowledge is a previously established fact.)
3) To avoid problems in #2 above, the DM could simply switch up the abilities
4) If secret monster vulnerabilities are responsible for such a large portion of the overall fun that the occasional spoiling of said secrets significantly lessens your game, well...

(Note that I'm talking exclusively about one or more players genuinely being ignorant. If they are merely pretending to be ignorant then they can play their character however they want; revealing the secret doesn't force the other players to change their roleplaying, it merely introduces new information for their characters to respond to.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

And you stick the trolls in a swamp filled with explosive gases.

And quicksand. And rodents of unusual size.

(But I love that explosive gases idea.)

 

[jasper]

I think one of the examples used in a previous thread was Card Counting in Blackjack. This is a technique that is not illegal but the House will kick you out if they think you are doing it.

Jasper, "darn it Bugsy, I rolled a nat 20 on my deception, and a nat 20 on my persuasion against Tony the Ant. Card counting is legal"
Michael Spilotro, " Chill Jasper, we just taking for a little ride while we discuss metagaming with you.:

 

[robus]

Here's the bit I don't understand about pretending to be ignorant of a trolls vulnerability to fire.

When does a player determine which round is safe to try to use fire? And what stops the rest of the table for pouncing on them as a filthy metagamer? Is there some session zero agreement that 3 rounds of flailing are needed before vulnerabilities can be exploited?

How long does the performance need to go on before the "knowledge" has been earned?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here's the bit I don't understand about pretending to be ignorant of a trolls vulnerability to fire.

When does a player determine which round is safe to try to use fire? And what stops the rest of the table for pouncing on them as a filthy metagamer? Is there some session zero agreement that 3 rounds of flailing are needed before vulnerabilities can be exploited?

How long does the performance need to go on before the "knowledge" has been earned?

That's what I've wondered, too. Generally when I ask I get attacked for being a bad roleplayer. /eyeroll

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It's only a grey area if it's possible for Jezal to know about trolls. Suppose Jezal grew up in the middle of a desert in a secret oasis where nobody left for fear of discovery. He was the first to get away. Trolls would be unknown in a place like that. There would be zero chance of troll knowledge being available to him. By ruling that he does not know about trolls, no options were removed from the player since that option was never available in the first place.

There are many backgrounds where troll knowledge wouldn't be available. Many where it would be grey and a roll would be required. And many where such knowledge would be automatic and Jezal would just know. This entire game is designed to be played that way. It's not up to the player whether or not the character knows about trolls. It's up to the DM to rule whether such knowledge is uncertain or not, and if it is, to allow the roll.

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?

Absolutely. During those times a roll will happen. That's the rule. Knowledge is a skill. When the results of a skill are uncertain, you get a roll.

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?

No. If it certain that Jezal has no knowledge of trolls, then Tony never had the option to have that knowledge. It would be no different than my deciding that a wizard could not cast cleric spells. The option was never there, even if Tony does know the names of all the cleric spells and what they do.

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.

It really depends on the person. For a lot of us immersion is fun in and of itself. If an encounter is fun or not fun, that's separate from immersion.

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

Again, though, this is for you, not for everyone. The group I play with values immersion and character above all else. Encounter fun is important, too, but is separate from immersion, so the choice above is a false choice for my group. I really doubt my group is alone in this. Just as I really doubt you are alone in your views and preferences.

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.

Maybe, but unless that cousin was one of the rare true adventuring types in the world, he probably ran his ass off or hid. My players write out their backgrounds. Those backgrounds, while not exhaustive, give a feel and framework to what the PC's history was like. I use that to determine if knowledge is certain or uncertain. Part of that is also where the PC is from. A desert dweller would be far less likely to know about trolls than a farmer who lived near the Troll Moors. There would have to be something exceptional in the background of the desert dweller to have the knowledge, and something exceptional in the background of the farmer to fail to have it.

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

I dive deep into my character and what he knows, doesn't know, or is uncertain becomes almost second nature to me. I'm just not going to screw up and act on say, trolls being vulnerable to fire when my character is certainly not going to know about it. It will take me less than a second to figure it out, and if the answer is uncertain, I will convey to the DM why I should get a roll. If it is certain, my PC will act or not act on my personal knowledge, depending on which way that certainty went.

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.

That's an option once in a while, but it is not satisfactory to do for many encounters. I refuse to play the game adversarially, and going out of my way to counter player knowledge is pitting me vs. the players. It's also not satisfactory to my players who enjoy meeting classic monsters. Why should I punish them for something that they aren't going to do anyway? My players don't cheat.

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.

First, I never create an encounter that hinges on any disparity. I don't consider that when I make the encounter. If I'm going to have trolls, I really don't care if they end up knowing about the weakness or don't know. If the PC's know, great. If they don't, great. It only matters to me that the knowledge actually be possessed by at least one of the PC's and not be the result of metagaming.

Second, it's not "probably" a bad idea. It's a good or bad idea based on what kind of group you have. If you have a group that enjoys metagaming, but you don't, then it can be an issue. If you have a group that enjoys metagaming and you're okay with metagaming, or a group that doesn't like metagaming and doesn't care about that disparity, it's not a bad idea to have encounters with a disparity in knowledge.

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.

And you can play that way. Just let the PCs know everything about monsters. My group doesn't enjoy that, though. Also, what I decide is never arbitrary. I always have a reason for allowance, denial, or uncertainty with a roll. It's never based on a whim.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It ruins the enjoyment for a lot of people.