D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Cap'n Kobold]

I disagree with your first sentence, though. The DM's job is to describe the environment and the results of the PCs' actions. What a PC knows is not part of the environment. If a player wants to establish that their character knows some piece of information, s/he's free to do so by deciding that's the case. If s/he wants to verify that the information is correct, however, then s/he needs to take some sort of action to do so, which can then be adjudicated. Then we're playing D&D, not 20 questions.

Outside of phrasing and syntax pedantry, filling in things that the character may know but the player does not is part of the DM's job. Whether that is what the weather outside the inn is like, to the name of the mayor of the town that the character lives in. If I think that there is a reasonable chance of the character knowing, but it isn't definite, I may call for a roll and then give information to the player about what their character knows.

I don't make a player climb up the side of the house for their character to successfully scale a cliff. I don't make a player read the Monster Manual in order for their character to know where the closest place to find bulettes is.

 

[Charlaquin]

It feels like you think that disagrees with the point.

If every battle you attack with your bow, and suddenly this battle, at a table that has a social contract that precludes metagaming, you happen to change to wanting to light a torch and use it against a creature you haven't encountered before but just so happens to have aweakness to fire, then that is an unreasonable action to start with because it goes against the social contract.

By what metric do you evaluate the reasonableness of this (or any other) action?

 

[Blue]

By what metric do you evaluate the reasonableness of this (or any other) action?

Really, it's part of the social contract at my table so people police themselves. You know if you're doing something because of outside knowledge. And if you're not sure, you can verify with the DM. "Hey, I forget, have we every fought rust monsters before? We have? Good. Wizard, can I borrow your quarterstaff?"

If metagaming isn't part of the social contract then don't worry about it. That's a valid way to play too.

Now, if someone is a bad actor regularly breaking the social contract, one thing to look for would be if they were acting in a way significantly inconsistent with how they usually act in ways that benefit their character. A metric has to be subjective, because of the vast array of situations a character can be in, but that seems to be a common theme.

 

[iserith]

I think we're using "metagame" in different ways. Interactring with the DM and the rules, rolling dice - none of that is "metagaming".

"Metagame" and "metagaming" are different things. It sounds like you are fine with the "metagame." You think engaging with it is still acting in-character so far as I can tell.

Also, ignorance that someone is metagaming because you aren't thinking about it is not lack of metagaming. From your previous descriptions where people bring in out-of-character knowledge, a classic example of metagaming, your game has huge amounts of metagaming. Just not caring about it so you don't count it does not make it less, just like lack of a pregnancy test keeps one from being pregnant.

This unfortunate concept of "metagaming" is why I have to account for it in my Table Rules. Attacking a troll with a torch does not have a prerequisite that the character know anything about trolls. Whether the player is a veteran who knows all about trolls or a newbie who doesn't, it's all the same to me - just another action to adjudicate. A player who wants to roleplay a character as knowing a thing or two about trolls can do so (and pray they are right!). A player who wants to play at experimentation or ignorance can do that too. They can exist at the same table and frequently do. They don't have to sidebar with me about who knows what and which action declarations are valid. They can just roleplay their characters.

So it sounds like I have less "metagame" than your games and more "metagaming" by the "classic example" as you call it, but even so, it has no impact on achieving the goals of play whatsoever. Which to me argues for not thinking about it so much.

 

[Charlaquin]

Really, it's part of the social contract at my table so people police themselves.

But you claimed that a character who typically starts battles with their bow but starts a battle against a troll by attacking with a troll would be unreasonable. If self-policing was truly the only criteria, you would have to accept the player’s judgment as to whether or not the action was reasonable, would you not? In order for you as DM to evaluate the action as unreasonable, you must have some criteria by which to make this determination, must you not? If a social contract against “metagaming” is in place, I would expect any such criteria to be enumerated therein.

You know if you're doing something because of outside knowledge.

Agreed, and I trust the players to make that determination for themselves.

Now, if someone is a bad actor regularly breaking the social contract, one thing to look for would be if they were acting in a way significantly inconsistent with how they usually act in ways that benefit their character. A metric has to be subjective, because of the vast array of situations a character can be in, but that seems to be a common theme.

Ahh, ok, so the metric is adherence to typical behavior patterns? If a player seems to be breaking their typical play patterns in a way that benefits the character, this might (subjectively, of course) be evaluated as unreasonable and potentially “metagaming?”

 

[Blue]

"Metagame" and "metagaming" are different things. It sounds like you are fine with the "metagame." You think engaging with it is still acting in-character so far as I can tell.

Interesting point. This could be true. Google redirects the first page of searches of "definition metagame rpg" to pages on metagaming, so I don't think there's a common distinction between the definitions in the context of RPG. But I'd be glad to learn more about it if you can give me some links.

So it sounds like I have less "metagame" than your games and more "metagaming" by the "classic example" as you call it, but even so, it has no impact on achieving the goals of play whatsoever. Which to me argues for not thinking about it so much.

Goal of play is to have fun. You can say "at this specific table it has not impact on achieve the goals of play whatsoever", which then makes your conclusion true at that table. But it can easily impact fun at other tables - such as if another player blurts out a just-met NPC is a lich and deprives me of experiencing the subplot in the adventure.

We recently finished up Descent to Avernus. My wizard and the warlock had a grand time cataloging what elements various fiends were resistant/immune. Besides fire - that became obvious very early on. It acheived the goal of play - having fun - quite well. Do I know and/or have the capability between sessions to look that up in the monster manual? Sure. But for us that would not have added to fun.

At another table, being able to have every spell slot used be effective may have brought the most fun. And, in case those two types of players are sitting at the same table, we have a social contract where we know our shared expectations.

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting point. This could be true. Google redirects the first page of searches of "definition metagame rpg" to pages on metagaming, so I don't think there's a common distinction between the definitions in the context of RPG. But I'd be glad to learn more about it if you can give me some links.

The prefix, “meta” in a general sense means “outside” or “on a higher level of abstraction.” The term “metagame” is sometimes used to refer to information related to a game that is outside the game or on a higher level of abstraction from the game. “Metagaming” as a verb is a shorthand for metagame thinking (which is the phrase the DMG uses to describe the kind of behavior being discussed). But it would also be accurate to describe information about the game’s mechanics, or generally about the game from
an abstract perspective as “metagame information.”

 

[Hriston]

I'm sorry that you find those questions annoying, that doesn't mean that they are wrong, just another valid way to play.

Sure, just not my preference because asking the DM questions that aren't about clarifying the DM's description of the environment are also not describing what your character wants to do, so it feels an awful lot to me like not playing the game.

I just went through this elsewhere in the thread, but two of the four primary uses of an Intelligence check is education and memory. Therefore, the rules expect the player attemtping to find out what a character knows from the DM is common. The others are logic and deductive reasoning. Again, things that the rules expect the DM to be able to clarify for the players. And therefore most certainly part of a DM's job.

Well, the proper use of an Intelligence check is for the DM to determine the result of a character's attempt to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. "DM, what do I know about X?" isn't a declaration that such an attempt has been made. Personally, I find it most helpful if the player tells me not only what prior knowledge or experience they are drawing (in the case of education or memory) on but also what the specific piece of information is that will be true if they succeed in their attempt.

 

[iserith]

Interesting point. This could be true. Google redirects the first page of searches of "definition metagame rpg" to pages on metagaming, so I don't think there's a common distinction between the definitions in the context of RPG. But I'd be glad to learn more about it if you can give me some links.

I think we're on the same page with the distinctions for the purposes of this discussion.

Goal of play is to have fun. You can say "at this specific table it has not impact on achieve the goals of play whatsoever", which then makes your conclusion true at that table. But it can easily impact fun at other tables - such as if another player blurts out a just-met NPC is a lich and deprives me of experiencing the subplot in the adventure.

It doesn't deprive you of anything except a story that might have been but is now something different, which can happen at any decision point during the course of the game. A character has made an assertion about the NPC's nature which may or may not be true. What do you do about that? Does your diplomatic character get upset at what looks like a hasty conclusion about a potential ally? Does your conspiratorial character consider the possibilities and seek confirmation? Does your cautious paladin put this to the test by detecting evil? Does your reckless barbarian cut her open to see if lich-stuff falls out?

If you're stepping outside of those considerations and into thinking "Man, this guy's character wouldn't know that," not only is that not for you to decide, but it's something you're doing to yourself.

We recently finished up Descent to Avernus. My wizard and the warlock had a grand time cataloging what elements various fiends were resistant/immune. Besides fire - that became obvious very early on. It acheived the goal of play - having fun - quite well. Do I know and/or have the capability between sessions to look that up in the monster manual? Sure. But for us that would not have added to fun.

That could be achieved at my game. You could even achieve it playing next to a guy who says his character knows all about fiendish weaknesses. But of course, his assertions don't necessarily mean he's correct. It bears testing and documentation! With the right personal characteristics in place, the character's dogged desire to rigorously test his companion's hypotheses might even be worth Inspiration.

 

[Blue]

But you claimed that a character who typically starts battles with their bow but starts a battle against a troll by attacking with a troll would be unreasonable. If self-policing was truly the only criteria, you would have to accept the player’s judgment as to whether or not the action was reasonable, would you not? In order for you as DM to evaluate the action as unreasonable, you must have some criteria by which to make this determination, must you not? If a social contract against “metagaming” is in place, I would expect any such criteria to be enumerated therein.



Ahh, ok, so the metric is adherence to typical behavior patterns? If a player seems to be breaking their typical play patterns in a way that benefits the character, this might (subjectively, of course) be evaluated as unreasonable and potentially “metagaming?”

I feel the quoting has chopped up my post in such a way that the context was lost so your replies aren't addressing what I said.

For the first section I gave multiple ways, so self policing is not the only criteria.

And the second part was (a) significantly change typical behavior - (b) for the benefit of their character - (c) and doing so outside reasonable character knowledge. The example I gave about a warrior borrowing a wooden weapon when encountering rust monsters AGAIN does not meet the third requirement, while by the abreviated single criteria from how the quoting was broken out it would.

Doing something new happens regularly - situations change, your charactger's abilities expand, etc.

And even then it's subjective because of all of the situations that can occur. Is it proof? No, we're not in a trail. If anything it's closer to an indictment - could something have been done by this person? If the possibility exists, you have a conversation, remind the player of the social contract. Maybe they will tell you why they did it, that's cool. Breaking one facet of a social contract on one occasion isn't a big deal, everyone has an off night occasionally..