D&D General It's not a video game.

[overgeeked]

If a player can make a choice in a game with or without the knowledge and arrive more or less at the same result, why is that going to ruin everyone else's fun? The secret door in the pit upthread is a good example. Why should the DM care about this?

It’s not a one-off that necessarily causes problems. It’s the repetition that does. Fall in a pit a look for secret doors, sure. Beeline and obsess over the one fireplace with a secret door and tons of loot, that’s iffy at best. One player repeatedly being the one to constantly do that, nah. That’s a cheater.

 

[Mort]

It’s not a one-off that necessarily causes problems. It’s the repetition that does. Fall in a pit a look for secret doors, sure. Beeline and obsess over the one fireplace with a secret door and tons of loot, that’s iffy at best. One player repeatedly being the one to constantly do that, nah. That’s a cheater.

And if that player has a problem with the DM moving loot around - or otherwise changing the adventure to not 100% as written - especially to the extent where it becomes a problem for the group? Then that's a seriously problem player and is not a good fit for the table.

 

[overgeeked]

There are plenty of reasons why gamers optimize, and "treating like a video game to be won" is but one possibility.


No, they also don't. Trust me, people were power gaming and optimizing before there was an internet. I can personally attest to that. MMO culture may have partially stemmed from that.


Metagaming is completely different from optimizing. Sure, a Venn diagram will have some overlap, but so would "people who believe dice superstitions" or "people who use names from Tolkien" - it's not meaningful. Metagaming is using knowledge your character would not have to do better. I personally am against it, but I know some of our regular posters don't even see a problem with it. Optimization is using mastery of the system in order to improve your character or your party. (And for completeness, minmaxers are a subset of that who try to minimize their weaknesses while maximizing their character's strengths.)

I have no beef with optimization as long as everyone at the table is having fun. Which often includes everyone optimizing, or the optimizers going for more support characters whom make everyone else shine and get spotlight.

But both metagaming and optimization long predate MMOs.

Yes, I’m aware. I’ve been playing since 1984 and seen my share of both. Perhaps it would have been better to say power gaming and metagaming like this spread and became wildly more popular with MMO culture.

In my experience power gamers are not there to have a good time. They’re at the table to win. And they tend to have a terrible attitude in regards to non-optimizers. In my experience optimizers straight up spoil the fun of everyone at the table.

 

[iserith]

It’s not a one-off that necessarily causes problems. It’s the repetition that does. Fall in a pit a look for secret doors, sure. Beeline and obsess over the one fireplace with a secret door and tons of loot, that’s iffy at best. One player repeatedly being the one to constantly do that, nah. That’s a cheater.

If the game isn't adversarial, as I believe you indicated in a previous reply, then how can one cheat?

If a player consistently makes good choices that lead to results like finding treasure, should I suspect that player of something nefarious? If so, why? Why should I care? Good for them.

 

[overgeeked]

If the game isn't adversarial, as I believe you indicated in a previous reply, then how can one cheat?

It becomes adversarial when the player reads the module to cheat. Reading the module is cheating. It’s supposed to be a fun mystery what happens next. Taking that away spoils the fun.

If a player consistently makes good choices that lead to results like finding treasure, should I suspect that player of something nefarious? If so, why? Why should I care? Good for them.

Because one player constantly making the best and only the best choices is pretty clearly cheating. If someone reads the module and constantly goes straight to the best loot and bypasses most of the monsters, there’s a point where “wow, that’s lucky” turns into “you’re damned cheater”. If you’re fine with players cheating at your table, cool. I’m not.

 

[iserith]

Because one player constantly making the best and only the best choices is pretty clearly cheating. If someone reads the module and constantly goes straight to the best loot and bypasses most of the monsters, there’s a point where “wow, that’s lucky” turns into “you’re damned cheater”. If you’re fine with players cheating at your table, cool. I’m not.

I'm fine with players making choices, good or bad, as they pursue the goals of play. I don't try to police the motivations or thoughts behind those choices. I'm not a mind-reader and, as @toucanbuzz's story indicates, there's a cost to being wrong.

Besides, I've already shown how (as has the D&D 5e DMG) to address matters related to metagame thinking. A player motivated enough to make the best choices during play by reading the module is also likely the kind of person to understand there's a significant risk to acting on assumptions, thereby taking the same steps in-game to verify those assumptions as a player without knowledge of the module. So really it's a not a problem. Or, if it is a problem for some, it's a problem that resolves itself just by saying you made some changes and doing so.

 

[Marc_C]

But both metagaming and optimization long predate MMOs.

QFT! I had metagamers and optimizers in AD&D in the early 80s. Everyone wanted an 18 in their primary ability. If point buy had existed they would have used that instead of convincing me (twisting my rubber arm) of using dice shenanigans to get the rolls they wanted.

 

[Reynard]

I'm fine with players making choices, good or bad, as they pursue the goals of play. I don't try to police the motivations or thoughts behind those choices. I'm not a mind-reader and, as @toucanbuzz's story indicates, there's a cost to being wrong.

You can start by asking "Have you played this module before?" rather than making the "You're cheating!" accusation.

Besides, I've already shown how (as has the D&D 5e DMG) to address matters related to metagame thinking. A player motivated enough to make the best choices during play by reading the module is also likely the kind of person to understand there's a significant risk to acting on assumptions, thereby taking the same steps in-game to verify those assumptions as a player without knowledge of the module. So really it's a not a problem. Or, if it is a problem for some, it's a problem that resolves itself just by saying you made some changes and doing so.

As a GM, I do not want a player to have foreknowledge of the adventure. I won't say they are wrong for wanting it -- again, I started this thread because the idea of using a "strategy guide" while playing Curse of Strahd at the table seems really weird to me -- but I don't want that at my table. Surprise is just one part of it: it is also unfair to other players who want to explore the adventure more naturally, and the person who is using the strategy guide is also very likely to be hogging spotlight and decision time in order to make use of their knowledge. That's not good for anyone at the table.

 

[iserith]

You can start by asking "Have you played this module before?" rather than making the "You're cheating!" accusation.

As a GM, I do not want a player to have foreknowledge of the adventure. I won't say they are wrong for wanting it -- again, I started this thread because the idea of using a "strategy guide" while playing Curse of Strahd at the table seems really weird to me -- but I don't want that at my table. Surprise is just one part of it: it is also unfair to other players who want to explore the adventure more naturally, and the person who is using the strategy guide is also very likely to be hogging spotlight and decision time in order to make use of their knowledge. That's not good for anyone at the table.

Yes, it's generally a good idea to ask anyone if they've read or played in the module before running it. The time to do that is on the front end, not the back end in my view. You can then decide as DM if you want to run it or not based on what the players tell you.

As to making generalizations about these sorts of players, my experience has not indicated this is necessarily so. I've run lots of adventures more than once for the same players and there really is no spotlight hogging to speak of. Difficulty of a given challenge can be reduced with the right choices, but any player can make those same choices without foreknowledge. Exactly how different players get to the same end result is not my concern. I care about the choices they make so I can perform my role as DM, not why they make them.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, it's generally a good idea to ask anyone if they've read or played in the module before running it. The time to do that is on the front end, not the back end in my view. You can then decide as DM if you want to run it or not based on what the players tell you.

As to making generalizations about these sorts of players, my experience has not indicated this is necessarily so. I've run lots of adventures more than once for the same players and there really is no spotlight hogging to speak of. Difficulty of a given challenge can be reduced with the right choices, but any player can make those same choices without foreknowledge. Exactly how different players get to the same end result is not my concern. I care about the choices they make so I can perform my role as DM, not why they make them.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.