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

[Shasarak]

Seriously, if a character is proficient in many weapons but specialized in one, doesn't it make sense that on meeting some unknown creature for the first time she'll reach for that one weapon first and only try something else once it's proven the one isn't very effective?

Lanefan

It could be because of that old rhyme her Gran used to teach her:

When in the sky, the moon is full
Dont use your Longsword, you fool
something something something say I
Stick a silvered dagger in its eye!

Or it could be any reason at all.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shasarak]

Well, from what I hear, Grandma is the wolf.

So she's probably not passing on that rhyme.

I heard that the woodcutter used his Axe to kill the wolf so at least that would make Lanefan happy that he used his preferred weapon.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Seriously, if a character is proficient in many weapons but specialized in one, doesn't it make sense that on meeting some unknown creature for the first time she'll reach for that one weapon first and only try something else once it's proven the one isn't very effective?

Lanefan

Sort of. Here's what I think is often missed in these discussions (aside from the fact that choosing not to use your player knowledge is still metagaming):

The player knows what the player knows.

The character knows what the character knows.

The character doesn't know everything the player knows.

But they player doesn't know everything the character knows, either.

The character has lived for usually at least a couple of decades, potentially meeting adventurers, seeing monsters, hearing stories about monsters and magic, maybe seeing magic, perhaps playing "adventurer" as a kid, and brandishing a burning bush branch against a "troll" or shooting silver arrows at lycanthropes, etc.

We don't know everything the character knows, and in some cases they actually know something we don't (and the DM will fill in those gaps for you when those situations arise). So it's just as reasonable to assume that they know how to kill a troll or lycanthrope as not.

The decision is up to the player and the table to make. Neither answer is more right than the other, nor is either answer more wrong. Many folks find the idea that pretending they don't know how to kill a troll silly and don't like the idea or approach. If necessary, set the expectations at the beginning of the campaign.

I've done it, don't care to do it anymore. After playing or running as many games over 30+ years, pretending that I don't know how to kill a troll seems absurd. The "acting" that we work through when pretending such a thing isn't really that good anyway. Maybe that's why we don't care to do it anymore, we're not very good at it.

I've also found over that time, that trying to police it doesn't really benefit the game. It takes us all out of the game and into a discussion that in the end has virtually no impact on the story of the characters. The fact that they acted upon something that you might think they shouldn't know, really is just a blip in the game. Boo hoo, they attacked the troll with fire on their first attack, instead of their third. Now for the rest of the campaign they'll always know how to fight a troll.

Instead, if there's a situation where uncertainty would be interesting or fun, I frame it differently as I stated earlier - don't tell them it's a troll. Just describe it. Second, if I'm really looking for a creature with an unknown way to kill it, it's something I've made up, either a new creature or a modified one, and part of the purpose of the design is to make discovering its weakness part of the adventure itself.

This approach works in my campaign, because my players are quite comfortable with the concept of retreating. When they can tell that something is not working, then they'll regroup and look for alternatives. It might be a way to avoid the creature altogether, or figuring out its weakness.

I'll say it again, finding a way to make it challenging for the players, rather than making them pretend it's challenging for the characters, is a much better approach long term.

 

[Bawylie]

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?

This explains all my investment choices.


-Brad

 

[Ilbranteloth]

First off, thanks [MENTION=6778044]
And here you lose me. The character knows what the character knows.

And for many players, part of what the character knows is everything the player knows. If the player read the MM, then the character knows that too. I might go so far as saying that's probably close to a default for many groups.

You like to differentiate more and restrict the character's access to your player knowledge. I don't have any problem with that, but it's not an approach for everybody. Mostly because there are a lot of people who just don't care.

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.

Which is fine, and a fun way to play. Although the longer I've played, the more I think that most people who appreciate this approach underestimate what I think a person living in a world such as this would know. But that's back to the variable threshold that different players/tables have.

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

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).

I agree that it can seem "very realistic." But aside from the time it takes to report back, which was less of an issue when my sessions were 6-8 hours long instead of 2-4, there were too many times when important information was missed. Which means I either needed to set up more potential clues, or I had to fill in some information for them, which then made the information obviously important. Overall we've found this approach just works better for our group. The reality is, even with the whole table listening, they still don't remember everything anyway.

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

Ultimately, one of the most powerful tools in the DMs toolbox is secrets. But attempting to simulate a secret from a book that is readily available to the players seems a bit pointless over time. Instead I want them to read as much as possible, but warn them that it might not all be accurate (because it isn't).

One of the things that I've found amusing over the years are people that complain a given product, or a given map in a product is wrong, or inaccurate. I love it. I have 30 years worth of maps released for the Forgotten Realms to use as fodder for the players. There are lots of contradictions, 1e/2e maps are a different scale with entire continents moved for 3e. Not to mention what 4e did to the world. I can drop in stuff from 1e, pull a bit from SCAG, and grab something from a Greyhawk supplement to add to my own creations. I have no need or desire to restrict my player's knowledge or access to books. Sure, if I were running a published adventure, I'd prefer they don't read the adventure. That's common gaming curtesy. And as I stated, we all place some limitations on what our characters know. And it's really up to each of us to determine what's acceptable at each table.

 

[Maxperson]

That's seems nice and collegial and probably works with a table that is comprised of a long-standing group of players that know and trust each other. But how does this approach work in say an AL game at your FLGS?

No idea. I wouldn't touch organized play with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Corwin]

No idea. I wouldn't touch organized play with a 10 foot pole.

Because those players would be bored?

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but is it reasonable to claim your enjoyment is ruined, or is it just being overly demanding and fussy? (EDIT: better phrasing would have been: "...or are you letting yourself be annoyed by what goes on in somebody else's head?")

Yes it's reasonable. I would leave a game where metagaming was okay.

Again, we're talking explicitly about the cases where:
1) Every player at the table knows some piece of information.
2) The character does not have the information.
3) One of the players decides to have his character act on it anyway.

This bugs you, right?

I normally don't alter posts, but since you're asking what bugs me I made some changes in bold to make it accurate

Ok, now let us contrast it to an almost identical situation:
1) One of the players is new, and everybody knows that player doesn't have the information.
2) That new player, in a flash of inspiration, almost instantly solves the puzzle.

Inspiration does not happen in a vacuum. For the new player to have that inspiration, there were clues and such to let it happen. Those same clues are fine for the player with information to have the same "inspiration".

The only thing I require is that the origination come from within the game. Aaron's example earlier was one where the player just invented a weak justification to metagame. Had that character been roleplayed consistently as paranoid and accusatory throughout, I would have been okay with his example.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, a background could possibly specifically exclude such knowledge. It could also specifically allow such knowledge. These are the extremes, and not much use in the discussion.

However, even if a background specifically excludes such knowledge, wouldn't it be possible for the character (from a fictional standpoint) to have a eureka moment where he tries something out of the ordinary, and it works! Such a moment can only be had by a player who is as unfamiliar with the monster as the character is meant to be.

I answered this a post or so ago, so I won't repeat it here.

In other words, it is okay to hold a player's additional knowledge against him, but not allow it to benefit him. Doesn't that seem odd?

No, because it's not true.

Yeah, I can understand the desire to go to a roll....and I've done that in these situations myself, for sure...I'm not so firmly on the "other side" in this.....but the roll will very likely leave you exactly where you started. With a player having to play his character in a way that is being influenced by the player's knowledge.

Influence does not equal metagaming, though. A player whose character does not know about trolls and chooses to swing a sword is not acting on the player's knowledge. He's acting on the character's knowledge.

I know that you say it is easy to play with only the character's knowledge in mind...but I don't know if it's even possible. Because a player who is holding off on using fire until some moment where fire use is deemed appropriate.....his thinking is absolutely influenced by the player's knowledge. You're not getting a "pure" decision from him.

Do you agree with that?

Sure, but it doesn't have to be pure. It just has to not be metagaming.

It's different. A wizard can't cast divine magic without multi-classing or taking a feat or some other option. Any character can conceivably pick up a burning brand from a firepit and use it to try and harm or scare off a monster. It's not a question of CAN the character do it, but WOULD the character do it?

It's similar enough. The option to use player knowledge that the PC doesn't have is as absent as the wizard lacking the ability to cast divine magic. The option to be inspired by in game facts is as present for the experienced player as it is for the newbie.

Sure, that's my point. If an encounter is immersive, but not fun, then why not waive the requirement of immersion if it somehow increases the fun? Or at least moves things along quicker so that the game can get to something more fun?

These are the possibilities.

1. Immersed(fun) + fun encounter(fun) = lots of fun.
2. Immersed(fun) + boring encounter(not fun) = neutral.
3. Not immersed(not fun) + fun encounter(fun) = neutral.
4. Not immersed(not fun) + boring encounter(not fun) = really not fun.

As you can see, there's never a reason for a group like mine who wants to be immersed to not be immersed. You can never have fun that way. At best it will be the same neutral as a non-immersed, fun encounter.

Yeah, I understand that. I wouldn't say that either of us are "doing it wrong" as far as the playstyle. What I call into question is your seemingly absolute view on metagaming as cheating, when I feel that metagaming is unavoidable.

That's because you have a different definition of metagaming.

For example, you asked why would [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION]'s character grab the firebrand rather than reaching for his sword. You stated that the sword is objectively more damaging than the firebrand. However, how do we know that? Perhaps the firebrand was more readily at hand. Certainly speed would be an important factor in the character's decision of how to react. Determining that the character has time to draw his sword before he's killed, and that the sword does more damage, requires an awareness of the game mechanics....turns, initiative, damage, HP, etc. All of these are present in your decision making. Is that not metagaming?

The character doesn't know that he can survive a bite from such a creature....so why not use what is at hand rather than trying to draw his sword before the thing eats his face?

I can follow that. So let's say all the players are in the same boat, and none of them tend to rely on fire based spells or attacks....so the chance of stumbling onto the secret is minimal at most.....how do you think things would play out? At what point does the troll die?

At some point my PC will realize none of his weapons will work, and if he has access to fire he will try it. If he doesn't, he will run away before the troll revives. If he has to run, he will inquire at various towns until he find out how to kill the beast that wouldn't die.