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

[Lanefan]

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?

Interesting, and I hadn't thought of this perspective. You're right, in that in this case the characters do get the short end.

One way to mitigate it in this instance could be for the DM, on hearing an obvious inaccuracy or omission in what's reported, to give the character a roll to see if the character in this case remembers more than the player does. It happens. I blame beer.

But in general I'm mostly cool with this, though I fully realize others might not be and that's cool too: my goal as DM is to challenge the characters (and by extension the players) and if a faulty report makes the challenge a bit more difficult or even alters its parameters a little, I can work with it.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Probably. Thats fine.

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

Character = player. If the character is isolated then so should the player be.

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.

Or, in the case of a quieter or more reticent player, just get told what to do.

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.

What that tells me is that, in effect, all the players are playing all the characters as a unit...the best analogy I can think of is a videogame-style adventuring party but instead of one player running it you have 4 or 5.

What happens if someone wants to make a bad decision? Do they have to argue their way through the peanut gallery first?

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

I've had to DM the fights it's caused.

I have to assume you've got a group of players who are all vaguely equal in their willingness to speak up - nobody is dominant, and nobody is unduly quiet. That's a rare group.

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?

Your way, for them; my way, for the active player. And as the active player is the one actually doing something that player's voice is the only one I want to hear. My goal is to keep what's happening entertaining enough that the other players remain (quietly) engaged.

An example, of a sort: I showed up for last weekend's session of the game I play in with a dead character. She'd died late in the previous session; I knew a revival attempt was coming but didn't know how long (real time) it would be before it happened. As it turned out the party did all sorts of things before reviving me, and I got 2.5 hours of grand entertainment watching them do it before I was - with difficulty - revived. Knowing it wasn't my place to get involved, I remained quiet - other than a few wry observational notes passed to the DM during gaps.

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

Because the advice is either unwelcome (often the case in my experience and always the case if I'm the active player) or unwarranted (the character has no way in game of conveying said advice).

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.

Well, it's not a boardgame, for one thing. And while you might think this style of play is nonsense a great many do not; and were I to find myself playing at such a table I'd be having harsh words with anyone trying to make suggestions when their character isn't in position to do so.

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.

I've learned the hard way that this is how the game...maybe "must" is too strong a word, but certainly ought to...be played. Your way just leads to quieter players being marginalized and-or told what to do, even in situations when the spotlight should be on them alone; and also leads to characters/players knowing things they shouldn't e.g. the anagram-name example.

Lanefan

 

[Shasarak]

Same thing when going to a movie. If I sit down and someone tells me the ending just as the movie starts, I will have it in the back of my mind. Try as I might I to enjoy the movie, the surprise and wonder of the ending is pretty much taken from me.

Surprisingly there has been research done which showed that people enjoyed a mystery novel more when they read the final chapter first.

Likewise there are a lot of movies out there where you can go into it having a good idea how it is going to end.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shasarak]

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.

In this case I would probably ask the DM what I knew about this city and then it would be up to the DM to decide if I needed to roll or not. I know that there are DMs who do not like Players rolling for no particular reason just cause they want to.

 

[Shasarak]

I'd like to meet these people, and punch them in the face.

I dont know if I would recommend starting with punching your wife in the face but what do I know - I am not a marriage counselor.

That's absolutely not true, no matter how much my wife says it is right after she BLURTS OUT THE ENDING.

lol

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, that's a way it could be handled. Of course, you included an instance of them using an effective attack, so I would think once that happened, all characters would see the effect and then could act accordingly.

But absent the acid spell....all of that seems like a really convoluted way of arriving at the inevitable conclusion.

Oh, it is - no argument there. But it satisfies my internal requirement of keeping said arrival-at-conclusion in character, even though I-as-player know full well what the trick is.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

In this case I would probably ask the DM what I knew about this city and then it would be up to the DM to decide if I needed to roll or not. I know that there are DMs who do not like Players rolling for no particular reason just cause they want to.

Fair point. My example was based only on my own experience; and my DM (and I, when I'm the DM) doesn't mind us rolling on our own for things like that as long as a) he knows what we're rolling for, and b) he retains his right of veto over whatever we dream up.

Lanefan

 

[Corwin]

I've learned the hard way that this is how the game...maybe "must" is too strong a word, but certainly ought to...be played.

I honestly don't have any Fs to give towards how others play at their tables. Truly. Affects me none. But I cannot cotton the attitude you express here. I find OneTrueWayism irksome. It catches in my craw.

Your way just leads to quieter players being marginalized and-or told what to do, even in situations when the spotlight should be on them alone

My considerable experience has lead me to conclude that quieter players are far more likely to learn to break out of their shell when in an interactive, outspoken group participating actively. Rather than, when it is spotlight time for the quiet one, everyone silently stares at them, waiting for something noteworthy to happen. I've found that only tends to exacerbate the problem. Make them even more self-conscious and intimidated. Which leads to them sinking further into their own shell. Evidently, YMMV. But people having trouble walking often make good use of a crutch. If you catch my drift.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Character = player. If the character is isolated then so should the player be.

That's not an answer to the question "Why?"

Or, in the case of a quieter or more reticent player, just get told what to do.

In my experience, that hasn't been the case. In fact, using the approach [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] describes, I've found that quieter and more reticent players have actually flourished.

And that is even when I happen to have one player that gets overly caught up on trying to do the "best" thing, and so attempts to convince other players of what they should do. I say "attempts" because the rest of us at the table aren't just sitting there letting him badger someone into doing something without stepping in to say "Hey, calm down man, it's gonna be fine, you're getting worked up over nothing" and to encourage the player to do whatever it is they want, not necessarily whatever it is they just got told to do. Because we're all working together to have fun, even the guy that goes a bit too far some times - and the more we play together with that shared goal, the less he oversteps, and the more the players you think would be negatively affected show positive change instead.

What happens if someone wants to make a bad decision? Do they have to argue their way through the peanut gallery first?

No one has to argue, assuming the group is actually trying to work together to have fun. If the group is arguing that someone is making a "bad decision", the issue isn't that the group has been allowed to make suggestions to each other, it is that they have incompatible ideas of what makes a decision good or bad - which isn't actually solved by not letting anyone make suggestions. Quietly incompatible is still incompatible.
I've had to DM the fights it's caused.

An example, of a sort: I showed up for last weekend's session of the game I play in with a dead character. She'd died late in the previous session; I knew a revival attempt was coming but didn't know how long (real time) it would be before it happened. As it turned out the party did all sorts of things before reviving me, and I got 2.5 hours of grand entertainment watching them do it before I was - with difficulty - revived. Knowing it wasn't my place to get involved, I remained quiet - other than a few wry observational notes passed to the DM during gaps.

You talk about rare... I've never seen someone sit 2.5 hours waiting to play and not getting to, except when it was as a direct result of the rest of the group actively attempting to exclude the person waiting.

Not because I've never experienced patient players, mind you, but because the players I have experienced are typically interested in getting everyone involved in actually playing - myself included - which means they wouldn't intentionally take longer than absolutely necessary to get to the part where no one is sitting out.

I've learned the hard way that this is how the game...maybe "must" is too strong a word, but certainly ought to...be played.

That sounds a lot like you are saying no one could disagree with you on this without that meaning they just haven't learned the right way yet.