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

[Lanefan]

You said this to a [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] post but I'll dive in anyway...

So you're saying it's impossible for the new player to use the burning log without any cues? Just because he thinks it sounds cool? Or it's what he imagines somebody in a movie would do?

Not at all. It could be - and with a brand new player (particularly where the whole table is brand new players) quite likely is - sheer coincidence. That's fine; they in effect beat the odds and hit on the right answer first try. Well done, and more xp to you.

But if it becomes a pattern, there's very likely more to it: they're reading the MM (a neutral act in and of itself) and acting on what they've read (thus playing in bad faith).

And a veteran player in the game simply telling the new player the tricks is a problem; the new player should be allowed the same joy of discovery we all had the opportunity to have.

Lan-"still learning after all these years"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

In order for you to determine what is OK for the player to know, you have to metagame. You have to make a decision, outside of the character and the in-world game, about what the character knows and doesn't.

Sure...which is what dice are for, if the direction isn't obvious.

Much of this might occur during character generation, but a lot will happen during the course of the game.

If something comes up during the run of play that I'm honestly not sure whether my character would know about or not, I'll either ask the DM (if it's important) or just roll a die (if it isn't, or if I'm told to as the DM's answer).

An example of something relatively unimportant: the DM might mention a faraway city - let's call it Victoria - in passing as we'll need to take to ship there en route to our next mission. I've no idea whether my character has heard of it or not but I know she's never been there, so based on her intelligence, pre-game background, and what she's learned through play I'll make a quick die roll and make sure the DM knows I'm doing so. One of several results happens:

[roll determines I've never heard of it] "Hmm - never heard of Victoria. If we're to stop there I'd better do some quick research and find out a bit about it."
[roll determines I've heard of it but that's it] ""Hmm - Victoria. Heard of it. Port town on the west coast, isn't it?" [puts ball back in DM's court, she'll either tell us more or not]
[roll determines I know it well] "Victoria? If we're stopping there keep your weapons handy, I've heard from some as have been there that it can be a rough place. Good harbour, though." [this info may have been prior player knowledge, or on a note passed from the DM on seeing my roll, or wherever]

For something that's more important e.g. let's say some of us as players know Victoria is in fact run by its Assassins' Guild (maybe us same players have been there before with a different batch of characters) I'll just flat-out ask the DM...and by note, if there's players involved who haven't been there before...what my character and-or others in the same situation would know, and go with whatever I'm told.

It's not that difficult.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

If a flaming brand is at hand it is perfectly reasonable for a character to use that to attack an enemy. Let's say it was a wolf instead of a troll. No one would bat an eye at a character trying to scare a wolf off with a firebrand. We've all seen it a million times. It is a perfectly reasonable action for a character to take.

If the intent is just to keep the wolves at bay, sure. If the intent is to kill them, or hurt them badly enough that they look for another campfire to bother, then a sword or crossbow really does make more sense.

Same is true if the campfire disturber is a troll, or an orc, or a bear, or whatever*.

* - however if the campfire disturber is a Twig Blight then go nuts with the fire. Better yet, pick it up and throw it on the fire!

At what point? When is it okay to decide "all right...my character has come to the conclusion that perhaps fire will harm the creature more effectively"? Is it only once you've exhausted all other options? Is it after X number of rounds? Does the DM decide "okay enough's enough" on a whim?

This is a valid question. Dice can be the answer:

Character thinking on the fly after a pretty good perception check: "OK. My sword chops it up but it heals from that. Genevieve's mace - same thing, it looks like. Same with Calliandre's force bolts, and Khozora's crossbow bolts. What else have we got? Hmmm...we haven't tried bare wood yet...even the bolts are tipped with stone. Haven't tried fire. Haven't tried water...hey, maybe they melt! Haven't tried separating the pieces yet, or burying them. Wait - that acid spell Calliandre hit it with - that's not healing!" <speaks out loud> "Guys! Do we have more acid?"

Right there are 5 options plus the acid (but how many parties carry jars of spare acid around with them?) - on being told we don't have any acid I'd just roll a d5 to see what I try next. Process of elimination and random roll will get me there in the end.

You cannot unknow what you know. A player that knows the trick and playing a character who doesn't know the trick is fundamentally different than a player who doesn't know the trick playing a character who also doesn't know the trick. Would you agree with that?

Quite true, but there's ways (one of which I've just shown) to more-or-less simulate it if you have to.

Lan-"only you can prevent forest fires"-efan

 

[Imaculata]

No it isn't. It's common sense. A D&D character with any knowledge of D&D wolves would know that they aren't afraid of fire. A D&D character with no knowledge of wolves would be more likely to use the much more effective sword.

Just a few sessions ago, I played a character whose party was indeed attacked by wolves at night. We had a campfire going, so I grabbed a burning log and swung it at the wolves to drive them off. And the DM ruled that they were afraid.

This is because as a player I know animals are afraid of fire, and so it is reasonable to assume my character might draw the same conclusion. And apparently the DM felt the same way, and ruled it effective. So yeah, there you go, a very recent example from an actual session I played.

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.

I have an understanding with my players that they can always comment on what happens in the campaign, regardless of whether their character is present or not, just as long as they realize that it is still up to the player whose character IS present to make the decisions. It is fine for them to exchange ideas, theories, strategies and advice as players at any time. All of that is considered OC (Out of character) and is ignored by me as a DM, and by the world.

Sometimes a player whose character isn't present, will remember something that another player couldn't, or reach a conclusion about the plot, or solve a riddle or puzzle. And they are allowed to share that information, because that's all player-to-player talk. They can then decide whether their character reaches that same conclusion as well. They can justify it any way they like, they don't have to justify it to me. If they decide that their character doesn't know something, that's also fine. That's role playing.

For example, the druid in my group had a secret meeting with an informant under a bridge, by the name of Robin Cheats (Obviously a false name). I described the npc, who was cloaked and hiding his identity. One of the other players, whose character was not present, figured out what his real identity was: His real identity was in fact Sebastian Roche, captain of the city guard (Robin Cheats is an anagram). And so he shared this information with the druid-player. The druid-player then decided that his character reached the same conclusion. That is team work.

I encourage this behavior, because it means that every player is still involved with what happens. They still get to participate in some way. They don't have to wait till its their turn again. They can just take part in the discussion as players. And the druid player does not have to pretend he doesn't know the identity of the informant, when the player does. When the player's knowledge and their character's knowledge match up, they can play their character as intelligent as they want, and make the choices they want to make.

 

[Lanefan]

I have an understanding with my players that they can always comment on what happens in the campaign, regardless of whether their character is present or not, just as long as they realize that it is still up to the player whose character IS present to make the decisions.

However, as soon as the "active" player hears all this her decisions are going to be influenced by it. Why not just let her player make the decisions uninfluenced by others?

It is fine for them to exchange ideas, theories, strategies and advice as players at any time. All of that is considered OC (Out of character) and is ignored by me as a DM, and by the world.

But not by the active player, no matter how hard she tries; and isn't it just plain inconsiderate to be gabbling away while the player is trying to think?

Sometimes a player whose character isn't present, will remember something that another player couldn't, or reach a conclusion about the plot, or solve a riddle or puzzle. And they are allowed to share that information, because that's all player-to-player talk. They can then decide whether their character reaches that same conclusion as well. They can justify it any way they like, they don't have to justify it to me. If they decide that their character doesn't know something, that's also fine. That's role playing.

No, sorry; that's blatant metagaming.

For example, the druid in my group had a secret meeting with an informant under a bridge, by the name of Robin Cheats (Obviously a false name). I described the npc, who was cloaked and hiding his identity. One of the other players, whose character was not present, figured out what his real identity was: His real identity was in fact Sebastian Roche, captain of the city guard (Robin Cheats is an anagram). And so he shared this information with the druid-player. The druid-player then decided that his character reached the same conclusion. That is team work.

Solving it is fine. Telling the druid the solution is fine when the druid and the solver are in a position to communicate with each other, probably after the secret meeting has finished and the druid has reported in. Otherwise, it's just metagaming; and your claim that it's team work is just a highly unconvincing attempt to justify what is in fact inconsiderate table manners and bad-faith play.

I encourage this behavior, because it means that every player is still involved with what happens. They still get to participate in some way. They don't have to wait till its their turn again. They can just take part in the discussion as players.

First off, I take it as a fact of life that not every player - never mind every character - is going to be involved in every event. If they've sent the druid off to a secret meeting then they can bloody well wait patiently while you and the druid's player play out that meeting...preferably by note or in another room away from the peanut gallery who can't keep their mouths shut.

And the druid player does not have to pretend he doesn't know the identity of the informant, when the player does.

Yet the player has this knowledge only because someone was what I would consider a jerk. Better that the player who solved the anagram (and well done there, xp for that character!) just stay quiet about it, hm? Sure, maybe pass notes to the players of other characters in whose presence he is; but leave the druid's player alone until the druid returns to the party.

When the player's knowledge and their character's knowledge match up, they can play their character as intelligent as they want, and make the choices they want to make.

Even when it's knowledge that neither player nor character should have? Bah. I'd last about ten minutes in such a game, and I'd not leave quietly.

Lanefan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Since I know that you can read, you are deliberately leaving out this... "I said that it's not cheating if the DM allows it." Since you are not in my game, and you seem to allow and play with people who are allow it, I cannot be calling you a cheater.

That sounds, to me, like a weak justification to explain how you can bring the idea that some people are cheaters into the discussion and pretend you didn't mean it to be a judgement against people that don't follow the rules you prefer.

Because if you weren't meaning to call all of us that you've called metagamers cheaters, there was no purpose for you to ever say that metagaming is cheating.

You are wrong. I have no need to police players who don't metagame.

I never said you need to police players who don't metagame - I said you are thought policing players when you are deciding that they are in fact metagaming, because you couldn't have any evidence to support your claim otherwise.

If by invalid, you mean valid, then sure. Someone who uses fire in every fight would have no problems using fire against trolls.

You moved the goal post. You are now saying that someone who always uses fire can use fire against trolls, and that is obviously true. What you were asked to think about was a character who does not regularly have accessible fire using fire 100% of the times that it was accessible to them, and how you labeled it as being inconsistent.

You would not have done that had you not known about the trapdoor and rogue falling in.

You literally can not know that.

It absolutely is a determination that the character can make given the character's knowledge.

Nope. Not if "fire scares stuff, and hurts/kills most things too" isn't also a determination that the character can make given the character's knowledge. You are inconsistently applying your own standards.

No it isn't. It's common sense.

No, that is absolutely one-true-way thinking. You've gone past any claim of what your own opinion is and are talking about literally all D&D characters that are threatened by wolves and trained in sword use, no matter who they are played by or what other details there are to the circumstances, and what they "wouldn't do."

A D&D character with any knowledge of D&D wolves would know that they aren't afraid of fire.

False. There is no statement present in the game material for wolves that contradicts the real-world fact that they are afraid of fire to a similar degree as anything that can be harmed by it, so there is no reason for that fact to not be just as true in-character as it is out.

And to really lay this completely ludicrous claim to bed; I'm a DM, and wolves at my table are now, and have always been, afraid of fire. So it's a completely normal thing for a character that knows about wolves to know that. It's also an entirely normal thing for a flammable creature, who is thus naturally afraid of fire, to assume any other creature to be flammable and afraid of fire until evidence to the contrary is encountered.

A D&D character with no knowledge of wolves would be more likely to use the much more effective sword.

You keep saying "much more effective sword", and I keep having a bit of a laugh to myself because this whole time you've been declaring me taking an action that, if not for the DM picking a specific monster type, you would consider to be a self-inflicted reduction of effectiveness, and also insisting that what I did is unacceptable behavior designed to gain an unfair advantage - it's a pretty wacky double-standard, unless you'd also be having the same reaction (telling me to stop "metagaming" and use my sword) had the monster chosen for the example been an ogre rather than a troll.

 

[Harzel]

Or you could just let them get it wrong and carry on! If they blow it, they blow it...and if they end up wandering around with no real clue why they are there or what they are doing then so be it. And even if they end up abandoning the adventure because they don't know what to do next, again so be it. Ironically, it comes down to characters operating on the information they have; only this time they have less than they otherwise might rather than more.

Hmm. Generally, what you have said in this and other posts reflects how I run things and prefer to play, too. However, after reading this last one, it strikes me that I may have to reconsider a bit. What I noticed is that in the above, there seems (to me) to be some slippage in who 'they' refers to. At the end, 'they' is clearly intended to refer to the characters; but at the start you are referring to things that were in their inception deficiencies in the capabilities of the players. So on the one hand we say that player strength (at least in terms of knowledge) should not advantage the character, but a player weakness (inaccurate reporting) should impede the character. I can see an argument that says that these things are not of the same type, but I can also see the view that this is inconsistent and always sticks the character with the lesser of the character's capabilities and the player's capabilities. Your thoughts?

 

[Imaculata]

However, as soon as the "active" player hears all this her decisions are going to be influenced by it.

Probably. Thats fine.

Why not just let her player make the decisions uninfluenced by others?

I think you got that in reverse. Why would you want to isolate your players? Its a cooperative game is it not?

But not by the active player, no matter how hard she tries; and isn't it just plain inconsiderate to be gabbling away while the player is trying to think?

I think you got this all wrong. The entire group gets to participate in the thinking process, but its the active player that decides what action they are going to take. They are free to listen to, or ignore the advice of their fellow players.

No, sorry; that's blatant metagaming.

Yup. So what?

Solving it is fine. Telling the druid the solution is fine when the druid and the solver are in a position to communicate with each other, probably after the secret meeting has finished and the druid has reported in. Otherwise, it's just metagaming; and your claim that it's team work is just a highly unconvincing attempt to justify what is in fact inconsiderate table manners and bad-faith play.

It is the exact opposite of inconsiderate table manners. The players and I have an understanding that whenever their characters are not present, they can still be involved with the events in the story as an audience. They can comment, they can offer advice. This draws everyone into the experience, regardless of whether their character is present or not.

I think you underestimate how positive this can work, due to never having tried it this way.

First off, I take it as a fact of life that not every player - never mind every character - is going to be involved in every event. If they've sent the druid off to a secret meeting then they can bloody well wait patiently while you and the druid's player play out that meeting...preferably by note or in another room away from the peanut gallery who can't keep their mouths shut.

And that is boring. This is exactly the thing that makes players turn to their phone.

Look at it this way: You can demand that they wait patiently and silently for their turn, or alternatively, you can involve them in everything, regardless of whether they are present or not. Which of these two sounds more fun for them?

Yet the player has this knowledge only because someone was what I would consider a jerk.

This is bizarre to me. Why would one player offering advice to another player, be a jerk?

Better that the player who solved the anagram (and well done there, xp for that character!) just stay quiet about it, hm? Sure, maybe pass notes to the players of other characters in whose presence he is; but leave the druid's player alone until the druid returns to the party.

Why? You don't need to play this way. I know this is how a lot of people seem to expect D&D to be played, but personally I think its nonsense, and I reject this style of playing. Your players do not have to play like they are on an island. Involve the whole group in whatever transpires. Allow them to discuss strategies and ideas, like they would during any boardgame, and the game becomes so much more involved and fun.

Even when it's knowledge that neither player nor character should have? Bah. I'd last about ten minutes in such a game, and I'd not leave quietly.

You should really try it first before you pass judgement on this style of playing. You seem very eager to throw out this idea, just because you seem to think the other way is the way the game MUST be played.

 

[Ricochet]

Imaculata: It depends on the group. Like with cooperative boardgames, one player is often quite dominant, and it becomes a matter of one person ruling the roost in regards to decision-making. So it entirely depends on the kind of people in the group. Is there one or two very dominant people, they will try and influence the others all the time and - in my experience - don't always do that in the kindest of ways. The others might not enjoy being trumped (but won't speak up because they are scared of conflicts).

I have a friend who I play Arkham Horror and other games with. He's a tactical wiz. He knows what the best move is for every player all the time, and unless we ask him to "stop advising us!" every now and then, he might as well play solo.

Best case: dominant/creative/quickthinking players provide just enough to keep the game moving at all times, and to help players who genuinely want their help and might not be as quick-thinking. It's a difficult balance though, and one I doubt most dominant players even realize sparks a problem for those they are continually trying to influence decisions for.

As for your suggestion that everyone be allowed to discuss a situation another player's character is in: I practice that too, especially if the game is bogging down due to the player in question having analysis paralysis. Other times I tell everyone to shut up and let the player do his or her thing on his/her own without being influenced by the others' suggestions.

 

[Imaculata]

And to really lay this completely ludicrous claim to bed; I'm a DM, and wolves at my table are now, and have always been, afraid of fire. So it's a completely normal thing for a character that knows about wolves to know that. It's also an entirely normal thing for a flammable creature, who is thus naturally afraid of fire, to assume any other creature to be flammable and afraid of fire until evidence to the contrary is encountered.

And to hammer the point home even further:

Maybe my character does not want to kill the wolf or troll, and so I choose the burning log over the longsword, because it is my character's goal to drive the creature away, not to kill it. Maybe my character assumes the creature would be more afraid of fire, than of a longsword (as many animals are).

Imaculata: It depends on the group. Like with cooperative boardgames, one player is often quite dominant, and it becomes a matter of one person ruling the roost in regards to decision-making. So it entirely depends on the kind of people in the group. Is there one or two very dominant people, they will try and influence the others all the time and - in my experience - don't always do that in the kindest of ways. The others might not enjoy being trumped (but won't speak up because they are scared of conflicts).

Dominant players that hog the spotlight, are something that all DM's must be wary of, regardless of whether you allow your players to share information or not. I think this is an entirely separate issue.