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

[Guest 6801328]

Here's the text for Metagame Thinking in the DMG.

One sentence on definition. 3 sentences clarifying the definition.

2 suggestions on how to address it. 1 is a gentle reminder. The other deals with building situations that are difficult to survive.

Nothing at all about player-character knowledge.
Nothing in there about cheating.
Nothing in there about a player giving advice to another player while their characters are not near one another.

-------

Right, a little digression. This one-true-way point people use is waffle. Pretty much everyone tries to do the best they can for themselves. Pretty much everyone believes they're basically doing the right thing. Making an accusation of one-true-wayism just sounds to me like "Well, that's like, your opinion, man" or "You think your idea is good." Basically meaningless points, no? Of course we think our ideas are good. Why would we keep doing things we think aren't good to do? Come on now, let's make real arguments instead of fart-sniffing ones.


-Brad

Edit: spelling

I disagree, Brad (obviously...). Even though you are a voice of reason in most things, I believe there is a difference between expressing one's opinion, even vociferously so, and One-True-Wayism. The latter case is characterized by the belief that one's way is not just superior, but that literally all other ways are wrong. Are cheating. Are not playing D&D.

Although I disagree (also obviously) with Lanefan and others, there's only person here who I'm accusing of OTWism. His arguments reduce not to aesthetics or preference, but correctness.

 

[cmad1977]

Oooh! Semantic word games! Sick burn!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bawylie]

I disagree, Brad (obviously...). Even though you are a voice of reason in most things, I believe there is a difference between expressing one's opinion, even vociferously so, and One-True-Wayism. The latter case is characterized by the belief that one's way is not just superior, but that literally all other ways are wrong. Are cheating. Are not playing D&D.

Although I disagree (also obviously) with Lanefan and others, there's only person here who I'm accusing of OTWism. His arguments reduce not to aesthetics or preference, but correctness.

Hey that's a perfectly fair disagreement.

And I see your point about the difference. I just don't think calling out one-true-wayism makes for a particularly effective counter-argument.


-Brad

 

[Bawylie]

"Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It's like when a character in a movie knows it a movie and acts accordingly. ... Discourgage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: "What do your characters think?"

Fun fact- the number of mentions in the 1e DMG of metagaming? Zero. But it did have advice on "obnoxious" or "troublesome" players, to wit:

"Some players will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than in playing it, and this ruins the fun for the rest of the participants, so it must be prevented. Those who enjoy being loud and argumentative, those who pout or act in a childish manner when things go against them, those who use the books as a defense when you rule them out of line should be excluded from the campaign. Simply put, ask them to leave, or do not invite them to participate again. Peer pressure is another means which can be used to control players who are not totally obnoxious and who you deem worth saving. These types typically attempt to give orders and instructions even when their characters are not present, tell other characters what to do even though the character role they have has nothing to do with that of the one being instructed, or continually attempt actions or activities their characters would have no knowledge of. When any such proposals or suggestions or orders are made, simply inform the group that that is no longer possible under any circumstances because of the player in question. The group will then act to silence him or her and control undesirable outbursts. The other players will most certainly let such individuals know about undesirable activity when it begins to affect their characters and their enjoyment of the game. Strong steps short of expulsion can be an extra random monster die, obviously rolled, the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strikes by surprise, naturally), points of damage from "blue bolts from the heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender. If these have to be enacted regularly, then they are not effective and stronger measures must be taken. Again, the ultimate answer to such a problem is simply to exclude the disruptive person from further gatherings."

A person can reasonably disagree about the "Old Testament" nature of some of the solutions (Ethereal Mummy?) but it shows that while nomenclature hadn't been established yet, the essential issues (rules lawyers, doing things when the character is not present, suggesting things that the character has no knowledge of) had been identified early in the game, and that the solutions (peer pressure, DM action) had also been identified.

That said, I fundamentally agree with your analysis that different players and different tables will approach the situation differently, and some will not view this is an issue, or have different solutions to it. It is not for me to judge if that approach works for them; however, quite a lot of the miscommunication occurs because people (as I have noted before) believe that if others do not approach the game the same way, that is an implicit attack. Which it isn't.

Sure, I mentioned this exact passage upthread days ago. In this case though, the problem appears to be troublesome players. Players who repeatedly and maliciously disrupt the game.

I feel that troublesome players has unfortunately devolved into an all encompassing "bad behavior." Like when "Do X and you'll get Y" gradually becomes "Do X or else not-Y." And those just aren't the same thing.

As an example I mentioned my kids group who constantly shout suggestions at one another even when their characters are nowhere near one another. That's not malicious and they're not troublesome. They're just really getting into the game. So even though they might be "metagaming" they don't fit the troublesome player category at all.

We've got to examine the text, our traditions, and apply a bit of reason here. That's all.


-Brad

 

[Corwin]

You're right. I was assuming you are a mortal human, and therefore are incapable of having gone camping enough times in your life that it is literally an uncountable number (as opposed to merely an uncounted one). My apologies.

Correct. That's an assumption of the use of the word 'countless' in this instance. Assumptions being tricky things. Sometimes they belie an agenda. Apology accepted.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

Hey that's a perfectly fair disagreement.

And I see your point about the difference. I just don't think calling out one-true-wayism makes for a particularly effective counter-argument.


-Brad

And in that you are right. It's a clear sign that I'm arguing not to persuade the person to whom I'm responding, but to score points with the people who already disagree with him.

Alas, I am human.

Then again, given historical evidence, it would be just as foolish to be arguing to persuade, in this case.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Correct. That's an assumption of the use of the word 'countless' in this instance. Assumptions being tricky things. Sometimes they belie an agenda. Apology accepted.

Ironically I assumed correctly. I didn't actually think you meant 'uncountable', rather I was, as cmad snarkily pointed out, just being snarky.

 

[Corwin]

Ironically I assumed correctly. I didn't actually think you meant 'uncountable', rather I was, as cmad snarkily pointed out, just being snarky.

If only words were used in more than one way, or had more than one definition. I wish something like context could be used to help weed out the less likely applications of words like that. Shucks.