D&D General DMs: where's your metagaming line?

[iserith]

Sure. And that’s great. But at what point is having to change how monster after monster, spell after spell, effect after effect, and item after item to prevent metagaming become too much? It’s like saying you know they’re going to cheat so you have to change how everything works so that when they inevitably cheat...because of course they will...your changes catch them out. That’s punishing them for metagaming. Why not just ask them not to? Wouldn’t that be easier? Is it such a common and accepted thing that’s it’s simply easier to change the whole game around them?

In fact, that's not what I'm saying at all. Remember, I don't care about "metagaming." I think it's a nonsense concept. I don't care in the slightest how a player arrives at decisions for their own character.

What I do is change things for reasons unrelated to any concerns about "metagaming." To continue with the example, I don't like the aforementioned mechanic because it makes getting out of the condition far too easy in my view. So I remove it. At the same time, I tell players upfront that I change things and that the smart play is to verify their assumptions before acting on them. Because that's the truth and I think being transparent on this score up front aligns everyone's expectations for play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure. And that’s great. But at what point is having to change how monster after monster, spell after spell, effect after effect, and item after item to prevent metagaming become too much?

You don’t have to change monster after monster, spell after spell, or effect after effect. Hell, you don’t even have to change anything if you don’t want to.

It’s like saying you know they’re going to cheat so you have to change how everything works so that when they inevitably cheat...because of course they will...your changes catch them out.

Not at all. I don’t consider it cheating. I make changes because I think they’ll improve the gameplay, not to “catch out cheaters.” Hypothetically, if I came across a module that I thought was absolutely perfect and didn’t need any changes at all, I wouldn’t change it, nor would I change my policy on “metagaming.”

That’s punishing them for metagaming. Why not just ask them not to? Wouldn’t that be easier?

It would be easier, if my goal was to get them to stop “metagaming.” But it isn’t. I don’t care if they “metagame,” so why would I ask them not to?

Is it such a common and accepted thing that’s it’s simply easier to change the whole game around them?

It’s an accepted thing, yes, and so there is no need to change the game around it. I just let players make decisions however they want to. I also make changes to modules and monsters when I think it’ll improve the game. These are separate things motivated by separate preferences, although the latter incidentally happens to make acting on out of character knowledge without taking steps to verify that knowledge risky.

 

[iserith]

I came across a module that I thought was absolutely perfect and didn’t need any changes at all

Do please let me know if this module is ever created.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do please let me know if this module is ever created.

Yeah, to be clear, that’s a pure pie-in-the-sky hypothetical. Even my favorite modules have room for improvement. In fact, usually what makes me like a module is when reading it gives me lots of ideas of ways to improve it and/or make it my own.

 

[overgeeked]

In fact, that's not what I'm saying at all. Remember, I don't care about "metagaming." I think it's a nonsense concept. I don't care in the slightest how a player arrives at decisions for their own character.

What I do is change things for reasons unrelated to any concerns about "metagaming." To continue with the example, I don't like the aforementioned mechanic because it makes getting out of the condition far too easy in my view. So I remove it. At the same time, I tell players upfront that I change things and that the smart play is to verify their assumptions before acting on them. Because that's the truth and I think being transparent on this score up front aligns everyone's expectations for play.

Sure. But it also just so happens to prevent any metagaming in that regard. You don’t need to care about metagaming because you’ve changed parts of the game that could be metagamed.

So are there any examples of things players use out of game knowledge to beat that you don’t change?

I ask because it’s hard to tell the difference between “I don’t care about metagaming...oh, and by the way...here are a bunch of changes I make that just so happen to prevent metagaming” and “here are a bunch of changes I make specifically to prevent metagaming”.

 

[iserith]

Sure. But it also just so happens to prevent any metagaming in that regard. You don’t need to care about metagaming because you’ve changed parts of the game that could be metagamed.

So are there any examples of things players use out of game knowledge to beat that you don’t change?

I ask because it’s hard to tell the difference between “I don’t care about metagaming...oh, and by the way...here are a bunch of changes I make that just so happen to prevent metagaming” and “here are a bunch of changes I make specifically to prevent metagaming”.

I don't change a great deal, just the odd thing on a monster from time to time to suit the challenge or maybe some details in a module because I think it makes the module structure better. It should be noted that neither this, nor my reveal to the players that I do make changes sometimes, actually prevent "metagaming." The players are free to have their characters do whatever they want. Maybe their "metagaming" will pay off. Maybe it won't. So the smart play is to have your character do stuff in the context of the game to verify that assumption. That this is true (and the players know it is) doesn't mean the players will actually engage in smart play though.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I ask because it’s hard to tell the difference between “I don’t care about metagaming...oh, and by the way...here are a bunch of changes I make that just so happen to prevent metagaming” and “here are a bunch of changes I make specifically to prevent metagaming”.

Why is it important to be able to tell the difference?

 

[overgeeked]

I don't change a great deal, just the odd thing on a monster from time to time to suit the challenge or maybe some details in a module because I think it makes the module structure better. It should be noted that neither this, nor my reveal to the players that I do make changes sometimes, actually prevent "metagaming." The players are free to have their characters do whatever they want. Maybe their "metagaming" will pay off. Maybe it won't. So the smart play is to have your character do stuff in the context of the game to verify that assumption. That this is true (and the players know it is) doesn't mean the players will actually engage in smart play though.

Right. You add in just enough that’s different to make the players question their assumptions (metagaming) and to keep things interesting. You also explicitly warn them that their assumptions (metagaming) should not be counted on to be accurate. And this also happens to punish them when they rely on their assumptions (metagaming).

It’s a chicken or the egg question. Did you start doing this before you stopped worrying about metagaming or did you stop worrying about metagaming before you started doing this? Because whatever your intentions, it’s a perfect trap for stopping metagaming.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But the one that really...really gets me is the "Sudden Rush." That mysterious and sudden need of PCs to rush to the place where something is happening despite not knowing that something is happening there. One PC is talking to an NPC...and miraculously the entire party suddenly and mysteriously needs to be there...for no particular reason. Or some PC spots something interesting...and miraculously the entire party suddenly and mysteriously needs to be there...for no particular reason.

Why does that bother you so much?

If a PC starts talking to an NPC, or if a PC sees something interesting, don't you want the whole party there for the interesting part? Doesn't allowing them to do so just prevent time from being wasted as the PC runs around gathering the party. "I'll go back to the other room and tell everybody that they should join me for this conversation."

And if it's a situation where there's danger (i.e., the lone PC gets into combat), and you think there should be dramatic consequences for splitting the party, interrupt the "sudden rush" by introducing new dangers. I.e., they can't rush down the hallway to join the combat, because a bunch of bad guys just filled the hallway.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And if it's a situation where there's danger (i.e., the lone PC gets into combat), and you think there should be dramatic consequences for splitting the party, interrupt the "sudden rush" by introducing new dangers. I.e., they can't rush down the hallway to join the combat, because a bunch of bad guys just filled the hallway.

I think @iserith was pretty clear that they aren't bothered by metagaming...


...AND it can be risky to rely on player knowledge at their table.