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

[Dausuul]

Stealing a look at my homebrew adventure notes isn't metagaming, it's cheating. If I were running a module, I'd ask if any of the players had already read it, and I would ask any who hadn't read it not to do so. If they read it and don't tell me, that's lying. Cheating and lying are a problem.

But I don't believe in trying to police player behavior to enforce a line between in-game and out-of-game knowledge. Rather, I consider it my job as DM to ensure that no such line is necessary. If there is information I want kept secret from the characters, it's on me to keep it secret (or at least dangerously unreliable) from the players as well. Players are free to read the Monster Manual* and use information gained thereby; but I homebrew a lot of monsters and tweak stats, and even when I don't, it isn't like I announce a name and a page reference. I describe the monster, in my own words, and the players can try to identify it based on my description. I'd say they guess wrong about 25% of the time.

As DM, the one place I do push back on metagaming is when players try to anticipate the plot, and get it badly wrong in a way that will result in a less-fun experience for all (i.e., they discount an important plot point or head off on a wild goose chase or charge toward certain TPK because they think they know where I'm trying to take them). That's where I tell them "Hey, guys, either quit trying to second-guess me, or get better at it."

As a player, I do try to draw a line between what I know and what my character knows. But that is a decision that I make, for me, for reasons of my own enjoyment. I don't ask or expect other players to do likewise.

*Although actually breaking out the MM to look up a monster in the middle of combat is poor form. Not that I'd get on someone's case about it, it's just... a bit crass, you know?

 

[iserith]

That’s a literal description of what roleplaying is. Pretending they do / don’t know stuff they actually don’t / do. I don’t know magic, but my character does. I don’t know how to ride a horse, but my character does. I know how to make gunpowder, but my character doesn’t. I know the game stats, strength, and weaknesses for most of the monsters, but my character doesn’t. Roleplaying literally is that thing you think is silly.

"Roleplaying" isn't actually defined by what you or your character knows or doesn't know. It's simply a player making decisions as to what the character does and says and how they think. What informs those decisions is irrelevant to whether the player is engaged in roleplaying. A player may decide they won't take a particular action because they want to establish the character doesn't know anything about trolls and wants to portray that ignorance. But it's equally roleplaying to attack that troll with a fire bolt because the player knows that fire is a good tactic against trolls.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The bad metagaming for me, is when the players think in terms of "the DM has done this, so it has to be so that there is..." (add anything such as a trap, a battle or something else) despite the evidence the characters are seeing.

I have definitely had players outsmart themselves by attempting to metagame. In one module, the players sent their familiar down to scout. The familiar noticed that in the subterranean levels, there was an underground bay that let out into the sea. The familiar had sufficient perception that they saw large creatures swimming in the bay.

One player joked (but not really) that it was an encounter to prevent clever players from entering through the bay and avoiding having to fight all the land-based encounters.

Nope! The shapes were a future encounter (that they had to fight anyway) and I had included them as foreshadowing. Going through the bay was a great idea (that I wish I had thought of).

The party chose the straightforward route through the land-based encounters and depleted most of their resources before fighting the boss of the dungeon.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That’s a literal description of what roleplaying is. Pretending they do / don’t know stuff they actually don’t / do. I don’t know magic, but my character does. I don’t know how to ride a horse, but my character does. I know how to make gunpowder, but my character doesn’t. I know the game stats, strength, and weaknesses for most of the monsters, but my character doesn’t. Roleplaying literally is that thing you think is silly.

Given how many people disagree with you, and yet who call what they do "roleplaying", do you think maybe it's possible your definition isn't universally shared?

Or, as Inigo Montoya would say....

 

[billd91]

Given how many people disagree with you, and yet who call what they do "roleplaying", do you think maybe it's possible your definition isn't universally shared?

Or, as Inigo Montoya would say....

Oh, it's widely shared. ALL of those things are definitely role playing, and pretty good examples too. It's just a subset of broader role playing that includes other things as well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"Roleplaying" isn't actually defined by what you or your character knows or doesn't know. It's simply a player making decisions as to what the character does and says and how they think. What informs those decisions is irrelevant to whether the player is engaged in roleplaying. A player may decide they won't take a particular action because they want to establish the character doesn't know anything about trolls and wants to portray that ignorance. But it's equally roleplaying to attack that troll with a fire bolt because the player knows that fire is a good tactic against trolls.

Or, to use even the extreme version of gunpowder, "My character found a dusty old tome with this strange alchemical formula, and she spent years deciphering what the symbols mean" is a perfectly valid character facet, so executing on that knowledge would be roleplaying by the previous poster's defintition.

Now, if the DM and other players didn't like that, getting upset and calling that cheating and having an argument about it would be one approach.

Another approach would be to nod and go along with it, only for the player to discover that the book must have been wrong because in this universe that formula doesn't work.

But, I would argue that an even better approach is to have the formula not quite work, and the quest to figure out why and perfect the process could be the basis for some adventures. I'm not personally so excited about the idea of introducing gunpowder, but if the player is that keen on it, maybe there's a way for me to work it into the story, instead of just saying no.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oh, it's widely shared. ALL of those things are definitely role playing, and pretty good examples too. It's just a subset of broader role playing that includes other things as well.

Yes, that's what I really meant. There are many varieties of roleplaying, and that is certainly one of them.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

For me, all that matters really is the story. Metagaming really only comes into play if the DM or players are worried about trying to "win"... usually related to combat and the game mechanics. But if you are comfortable having yourself "lose" in the story occasionally... the need to prevent it by trying to metagame usually disappears.

I wanted to pair these two quotes. For me, the best RPGing is when you as the DM get lost in the story and you as player get lost in the character.

Certain actions taken by players (or more rarely by DMs), can bring that immersion to a screeching halt. Generally, it is when a PC either acts completely out of character based on player knowledge or takes actions that make it clear that the player is treating them like a gamepiece.

The character that teleports to wherever the story is (regardless of what they were doing before) is an example. The party that doesn’t split up even in town because they are afraid of an ambush (without justification) is another. The party that brings along the party face to everything just for the +2 to Persuasion checks is another.

Edit. To get back to my previous example. “There are aquatic creatures there and I’m not good at fighting underwater” is an entirely reasonable argument to avoid entering through the bay. “There’s no way there’s a back door to this module that is easier than the front door” isn’t.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Certain actions taken by players (or more rarely by DMs), can bring that immersion to a screeching halt. Generally, it is when a PC either acts completely out of character based on player knowledge or takes actions that make it clear that the player is treating them like a gamepiece.

I'm hoping that you meant that this is your experience. Because for myself, that doesn't affect my "immersion" at all. I could care less how other players make their decisions.

What brings it to a screeching halt for me is when I have to pretend to not know something in order to comply with somebody else's definition of roleplaying, as in the example I described at the beginning of this thread, where the DM posted the monster's mind control ability right there in the Roll20 log, but we were all supposed to pretend that we didn't know one of the PCs was now charmed.

 

[Li Shenron]

This I find a bit odd.

Metagaming doesn't really bother me. I think it's silly to expect people to make bad decisions in some weird attempt to pretend not to know things that they, in fact, know.

But if I had to pick a line I guess it would be 'if I'm running a pre written adventure, don't read it'.

I've had players say to me 'oh yeah, I've read that, but it's okay. I won't metagame' but what on earth does that even mean? Do you just pretend not to know that Alice the barmaid is really a chaos cultist? How do you decide at what point you have received enough information that you stop pretending and 'figure it out'.

If it's a mystery adventure, obviously having read/played it before spoils it.

But frankly, many D&D adventures are OK even if you know them already, because they aren't much about 'figuring out'. I've played ToEE several times and it's always good.