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

[Lanliss]

Thank you!!!!!

EDIT: nope, that didn't work either. Ah well...

[sblock]did you try it without the dashes?[/sblock]

 

[Lanefan]

First off, thanks [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] for a well-thought-out post.

In a world where civilization has fought back trolls, skeletons and werewolves, for thousands of years (or in the case of the Forgotten Realms, tens of thousands of years), is there any person on the planet that would not know trolls are vulnerable to fire and lycanthropes vulnerable to silver? Descriptions of most towns have silvered arrows in their armory for just such a purpose, for example.

And here it would probably depend on each character's background. A local militiaman might very well know what those silvered arrows are for, having had it drilled into him by his commander. A farmhand might very well not, having never heard of lycanthropes in his life.

That said, I don't run FR these days and even when I did I didn't exactly hew close to established canon. Chopped it to bits, more like.

Having said that, D&D is a role-playing game. While many people equate role-playing to acting, it's really simply making decisions and taking actions in character. Instead of reacting to this situation as I would, how would this character react?

Exactly! (though the acting bit can be fun too)

The real problem then, is not metagaming. We have no choice but to metagame. The problem is identifying the limits of character knowledge, and how that is acted upon in the game.

OK, I'm kinda with you so far...

For many people there is no problem - they character knows what I know.

And here you lose me. The character knows what the character knows.

But I think every player, whether they acknowledge it or not, restricts the knowledge of the character. That is, they role-play that the character doesn't know something that they as a player does. You might know calculus, or the recipe for gunpowder, or perhaps you're a surgeon, but I think it's rare for any player to suggest that these are things that their character also knows.

True. Most characters don't know much about modern technology either (which I use as an example as in the campaign I play in we've been encountering just this for years).

And while it may not be obvious in the discussion, the real question is where that threshold is, and how it's handled by the player/group.

Agreed.

I, as a DM, prefer to approach it largely from a different direction. I encourage my players to know the rules, and also to read the Forgotten Realms releases, whether it be novels, sourcebooks, whatever. Why? Because my goal at this stage is better immersion. Make the world feel like a real place. The more common knowledge that the players share about the world and its inhabitants, the more real the world feels. The published material is the backdrop for our campaigns.

Which is certainly one way of doing it. My preference as a player, though, is to know very little about the greater game world going in...I know the town we start in, maybe the next town over, the hills to the south are dangerous, there's a big city somewhere down the river, and that might be the extent of my knowledge...and to explore and discover it as play goes along.

We even go so far as to make it a general rule that when the party is split up, that all of the players remain at the table and listen to the encounters under the assumption that the characters would tell the rest of the party what happened and it saves us time. Plus, if there are clues that occur, having them relay what happened to the rest of the party is rarely sufficient.

Where I see the report-back stage as vital, in that reports back aren't always accurate...which is very realistic.

If there is something that needs to be secret (for a time), then I'll take the relevant people aside, or use a note, or some other way to actually keep it a secret from the other players.

Me too, constantly; then I leave it down to the players to report what happened. I'll only mention things the other group would have noticed e.g. "about 5 minutes after the scout team left you saw a plume of smoke appear at the southeast corner of the castle" and let the react as they will 9and the smoke plume may or may not have anything to do with the scout team at all).

The point is, you start with the idea that everybody already knows a given creature's weakness, but circumstances have created a scenario where you can't take advantage of that weakness. That makes for an interesting encounter. Because instead of the players trying to determine when and how the characters would figure it out, it creates a problem for the players to figure out.

I think most of us would agree that actually figuring out a challenge is more fun than pretending that the character figured it out.

Certainly an interesting take on it, and useful when dealing with characters to whom these things have become old hat. It's really only the first time these creatures are met, that the issue arises.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

No, but what I'm suggesting is that this whole discussion at the table could be avoided by putting less focus on the secrecy of monster abilities and immunities.

Perhaps, but the greater issue goes well beyond just that one aspect...see below...

I don't think it is a good idea if there is a conflict between what the player knows, and what the character knows.

Where I see that conflict as an unavoidable fact of life, if the character is to be anything much more than a game pawn.

Ironically, I do the exact opposite of what was suggested in that DMG. I encourage my players to be invested in what other players are doing (even if their character isn't present), and by all means to make suggestions, or remind their fellow player of things that may have slipped their mind. They are a team after all. Some of the best moments have been with just one or two players in a sticky situation, and the rest of the party offering advice to them.

Interesting.

Some of the nastiest out-of-character player fights I've ever had to DM have arisen from just this very thing: players who resent other players making suggestions as to what to do when their characters have no way of knowing the situation. And I'm foursquare behind the resentful players in this situation, the not-involved players simply need to learn when (or how, in some cases) to shut up; and were it to happen to me as a player the 'conversation' that would immediately follow would not be pleasant.

It got so bad at one time that as DM I put the hammer down in a rather extreme - and, yes, very metagamey - manner: if a viable course of action was suggested by a player whose character(s) had no way of knowing the situation and-or communicating that suggestion, that course of action was henceforth banned. Pretty much solved the problem at the time, though every now and then it still rears its ugly head.

Way better than people just twirling their thumbs or looking at their phone, waiting till its their turn.

Perhaps, though sometimes patience is a virtue.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Why would I go for Taco Tuesday when jasper is running Troll Tuesday every day now?

Tacos...troll meat...pretty much the same, in my opinion.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

For many people there is no problem - they character knows what I know.

And here you lose me. The character knows what the character knows.

Let's build on that. I've said it before, but perhaps it bears repeating because, at least to me, the reasoning is sound.

The character knows what the character knows, but a character can conceivably take an action without knowing anything in particular. A character doesn't need to know about the weaknesses of trolls to attack them burning log, for example.

Further, what the character believes is established by the player. What the character believes may or may not be true and the character (and thus the player) will only find out by doing something to test that belief - either by trying to recall lore or, in the troll example, hitting the beast with a burning log and seeing what happens.

And it's when a player says the character is doing something that the DM can step in and say what happens as a result.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Lanefan]

Let's build on that. I've said it before, but perhaps it bears repeating because, at least to me, the reasoning is sound.

The character knows what the character knows, but a character can conceivably take an action without knowing anything in particular. A character doesn't need to know about the weaknesses of trolls to attack them burning log, for example.

Further, what the character believes is established by the player. What the character believes may or may not be true and the character (and thus the player) will only find out by doing something to test that belief - either by trying to recall lore or, in the troll example, hitting the beast with a burning log and seeing what happens.

And it's when a player says the character is doing something that the DM can step in and say what happens as a result.

Does that make sense to you?

In the context of being an isolated example and indicent, yes it does.

However, what do you think of it when the player whose character just happened to try the burning log is the same one who just happened to try a silvered dagger against a lycanthrope and who just happened to pull out a mace on first seeing skeletons - even though her favoured weapon has always been longsword? At what point do the bounds of credulity stop stretching and just snap?

Lanefan

 

[Shasarak]

Which is why the debate is meaningless. Metagaming has been an issue in D&D since the 1970s- since D&D started. Different tables will have different tolerances for metagaming, including simply not worrying about it. But the solution is a matter of preference and playstyle, not something that a person is going to dictate by fiat and argumentation over the internet.

And yet here we are.

I guess if I labeled everything that I dont personally like as "cheating" then you end up with a whole mess of Cheaters like, for example, players that have Dwarven characters but do not use Scottish accents!

Of course that is just a hypothetical situation because, if it was to arise in my game, the player would get one warning before being banned from the table like all other dirty cheaters.

 

[Lanliss]

In the context of being an isolated example and indicent, yes it does.

However, what do you think of it when the player whose character just happened to try the burning log is the same one who just happened to try a silvered dagger against a lycanthrope and who just happened to pull out a mace on first seeing skeletons - even though her favoured weapon has always been longsword? At what point do the bounds of credulity stop stretching and just snap?

Lanefan

FWIW, I think these are all poor examples. Troll/fire aside, I have know for as long as I can remember that silver is good against werewolves, and I don't even have to worry about running into them, so I imagine someone who lives in the same world as them would know. On top of that, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that swords are for slashing flesh, and making things bleed. Hammers and maces are for crushing bones. If you assume Trolls are as prevalent, or more, than werewolves are in our world, then everyone will know about the fire thing, unless they have specifically gone out of their way to not know things other people know.

 

[Shasarak]

In the context of being an isolated example and indicent, yes it does.

However, what do you think of it when the player whose character just happened to try the burning log is the same one who just happened to try a silvered dagger against a lycanthrope and who just happened to pull out a mace on first seeing skeletons - even though her favoured weapon has always been longsword? At what point do the bounds of credulity stop stretching and just snap?

Lanefan

There has to be some reason that she has her character carrying a silvered dagger, a mace and a burning log as well as her favoured longsword?

Otherwise I presume that the DM should have just nixed those items off her character sheet at the village before she headed off on adventure.