D&D General "I make a perception check."

[Charlaquin]

I'm not sure what kind of thought crim metagame thinking is... but I like to when ever possible keep metagaming actions out of play (as a player and a DM).

If a player that was going to buy a drink at the bar saw a DM open the raven loft book to the vampire stats and then said out loud to the table "Oh the DM is prepping ravenloft vampires, so instead I want to go make steaks" I would expect all the rest of the table (DM or Player) would point out "Come on we didn't see that in game don't bring it into game"

now is there a thersitical work around were the player WANTS to cheat the system, sees the DM open the book to vampires, and says "I go to make steaks from the trees" and when another character asks why says "Oh my character is super paranoid... my parents died to a vampire...I see them everywhere" and gets away with it. Sure... but over time and alot of VERY odd changes to declarations we would most likely talk to that player before a game session started about the pattern and how we feel about it...

Yeah, so when people say you’re dictating how the characters are allowed to act? That’s what they mean.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would say any series of rolls that only have 7% chance of succeeding are an exercise in frustration rather than fun.

That's why properly designed skill challenges (which is what the "put together the robot..." scenario is, it's just not a good one) allow for PCs to have some flexibility in skill choices, progress despite a failed skill roll and plenty of room for interesting failures (and successes) before "ultimate failure."

yes... and in my group our goal is to have fun at the table

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, so when people say you’re dictating how the characters are allowed to act? That’s what they mean.

I don't understand... in the example I was a PC... and the whole table asked (not told, asked) to think in character... when he flaunted the why... that he was doing the thing we all find un fun.
please show were that DM (not even me in the example) disallowed an action.


there IS 100% a list of things characters can never do in my games (mostly crimes I don't want to talk about on enworld and neither do the mods)

 

[Celebrim]

I would say any series of rolls that only have 7% chance of succeeding are an exercise in frustration rather than fun.

Well, on the one hand, that's what you get for dump stating intelligence. Sooner or later you are going to expect to get in a scenario where you don't have much chance of success. More importantly, it's casually realistic that a character that mechanically inept will experience an exercise in frustration. When I cooked up the scenario I probably wasn't expecting that the least mechanically adept member of the party would end up putting together the robot.

That's why properly designed skill challenges (which is what the "put together the robot..." scenario is, it's just not a good one) allow for PCs to have some flexibility in skill choices, progress despite a failed skill roll and plenty of room for interesting failures (and successes) before "ultimate failure."

You aren't saying anything I necessarily disagree with, except to say that a lot of the time I'm prioritizing as a choice in style simulation over narrative. If the worst mechanically adept character is the one putting together the robot, the fact that he might fail in frustration is not something I necessarily consider a problem. The skill challenge doesn't have to be fair to him or rely on skills he has. The skill challenge only needs to be fair for the party working together.

I have a lot of skill challenges in my game but they rarely have a structure like the 4e "skill challenge". They instead tend to be intuitive to the process with each skill challenge having rules that feel intuitive to the particular task at hand, and often with large parts of it left free form to allow for player ingenuity in ways I didn't foresee.

 

[Charlaquin]

Enjoying the story? Getting a better sense of the larger world?

Except, again, the result actually made the story and the world less compelling, because character motivations be damned, I rolled low, so I get no progress!

Because you are playing a game where listening to the DM is a major part of the game.

Doesn’t seem like it, since listening to the DM and making an informed decision about how to go about influencing the character resulted in exactly the same thing that would have happened if I’d just played Candy Crush in another tab until the DM stopped talking and then pressed the button to make the random number pop up on the screen.

Why would I bother crafting a believable world filled with believable characters with complex motivations if the thing you care about is whether or not you get advantage?

What I care about is the world responding to my input in a believable way, which in this instance (and many others in that campaign; I really didn’t care for that DM’s style) didn’t happen.

Maybe the DM thought your speech completely missed the mark and they would have auto-failed you, but figured you put enough effort in to warrant a check.

If that was the case, he did not communicate that at all. The general impression was definitely one of a pretty compelling argument, tailored to appeal to the NPC’s values. Again, I’m not saying I should have been automatically successful, but the results felt very incoherent with the narrative.

 

[Charlaquin]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure this is me as DM at some point in the past. I had a plot in mind and, dangit, I was going to follow it! And while something would very likely feel off to me about such interactions after the session, I wasn't sure exactly how I could change things to make the sessions better. As we all know, there is a lot on a DM's plate - environment descriptions, monster stats, NPC voices, maps, managing the schedule, sometimes managing player personalities, and more. After a session I would be drained and just wanting to rest up and prep for what would be, hopefully, a better next session. It was fun enough to keep me coming back but not quite as satisfying as I hoped it could be.

It was only by spending time reading and contributing to this forum - and (trying to) keep an open mind while doing so - was I able to gradually pick up on approaches by DMs (especially DMs such as yourself) and try them out in my own games. Or avoid certain approaches, for that matter (like the one you present here). Through doing so, I was able to break through that feeling of incompleteness and start racking up strings of sessions that I found truly satisfying. I think my efforts to improve have filtered through to some degree to the players and player-DMs in our group (and their efforts to improve have likewise influenced me - it's a cooperative game after all!) Habits of old editions that don't jive with 5e gameplay have mostly been shed and we're having far more great sessions than lackluster ones. I'm certainly far from perfect now and there's always more to learn and master, but I do feel like I have a much improved ability to self-reflect after DMing a session on what I can do to make things better for the whole table. And I owe a good part of all that to this community.

Yeah, this parallels my own evolution as a DM, though I learned these techniques during the 5e playtest, from folks on the WotC forums and on a couple of blogs.

 

[Celebrim]

okay maybe we can try this again... just read what I write and not try to read some evil DM trickery into it please...

I mean I find it exactly as enforceable as every other part of our hobby... if 1 player keeps doing it then it will make the game less fun for the rest of us... over time we will talk this out, and if we can't find someway to make it work we will split ways...

what do you mean be enforceable?

I realize now I need to give you very concrete examples.

For the last 3 years my group has only been meeting remotely over Discord. Now, supposing I was the sort of GM that got upset with players using their player knowledge to inform how they played the character. And suppose I then announced a table rule, "Don't read setting books and scenario books at "the table". Don't open up rule books in response to things that happen in the game." How would I be able to know when the table rule I just announced was being broken given that I can't see what pdfs or books the players have open? And what would I do about it if it was?

So no, my table rule isn't then exactly as enforceable as anything else.

On the other hand, if I had a table rule that said, "Just because you announce the intention to attack first, it doesn't mean that you get any advantage on surprise or initiative. In order for one character to surprise another, the character must not be aware of the other. However, I will allow the following exception. If you achieve a friendly relationship with a target, if your Disguise check beats their Sense Motive check, I will allow surprise because they weren't expecting an attack because they saw you as a friend. Keep in mind this doesn't work if the target is only pretending to be friendly. If the situation is an NPC trying to attack a PC, I hold the last word on whether your character honestly believed the NPC to be a friend, but you can still roll to avoid surprise."

Isn't it then obvious, how I as the GM would enforce that as a table rule? Isn't it obvious I have enough authority over the game as the GM to enforce a table rule like that?

okay when I think metagaming I think using out of character knowledge for ingame benefit

That's pretty close to my definition, though I'd make yours even more simple. I think of it as using out of character knowledge period, and why you do it doesn't really matter. Yes, most often players are using their out of character knowledge for in game benefit, but I don't think the motive matters as much as the action. Because again, neither of us are mind readers and to a large extent what your intention is doesn't matter as much as the result. And I think you kind of get this because you say:

"(in theory there is a form where I guess you takeout of game knowledge to use in game to no benefit too)"

I doubt anyone can ever make such things impossible... but again I am just thinking at the tables I play at we try to minimize it...

So here is my point. Once the player has out of game knowledge that impacts the in game, it's too late to minimize it. That knowledge is out there and no matter what the player does, he'll be metagaming. So the only functional way to minimize metagaming is to minimize the leakage of out of game knowledge to the player. And the only important knowledge to minimize that is within the GM's purview.

So we have the same goal. I'm using secret rolls when needed, and DM screens, and so forth in order to prevent having a situation where the player's game is ruined by his own out of game knowledge. Where as you are doing everything out in the open and then blaming the player for receiving the information you provided them. My way seems more functional and well more fun.

Moreover, everything in this thread is actually about a process of play that keeps my game in character more often than yours. That's my motive. Which is why when you describe processes of play that make the game more out of character and insist it's keeping it more in character, it is baffling.

we don't see it as fun if we play with full out of game knowledge.

Yes, but it's impossible to play without your full out of game knowledge. You can't erase what you know from your own head, and in the general case that knowledge is always informing your choices even when you are trying to not let it inform your choices. So you aren't actually offering solutions to the problem as I see it, where as I am offering solutions to the problem as I see it.

I have not used a screen since I started playing 4e, and right now we are using roll20... we don't hide things out of game because we trust each other not to use it in game.

It has nothing to do as trust. I know from my experience as a player that it's impossible to ignore what you know as a player. You can't not use what you know except by non-participation, which is itself metagaming.

I can't imagine how much less fun I would have as both a player and a DM if I had to constantly worry about if I did something out of game.

And I could say the same thing back to you. Because it's only at your table that the players have to worry about whether or not they are metagaming wrong. I've explained this to the players before. "Metagame to your hearts content. Just beware. I've got a 150ish IQ and 40 years of experience, so don't assume that you can just jump to conclusions about something. I won't metagame against you and change prepared text or invent counters on the fly, but the knowledge you get in game is always more reliable than your out of game assumptions"

I don't think it's 'on you' or 'on them'

I can make mistakes as a GM. If in an OOC comment I the GM accidently blurt out the real name of the BBEG rather than his assumed identity, and thereby give the players the key to the mystery, well that's not my players fault and I can't expect them not to act on the new found knowledge. I won't demand they even try pretend they don't know the very information I just gave them and that it doesn't now inform their actions.

So, back to the concrete example. Suppose you are GM Alien RPG and the players are colonial marines exploring a jungle world as part of biological survey mission. And something happens in game that is pretty innocuous, like the players find one of the NPC has been beheaded in the jungle, but causes a player to think and this happens:

PC #1: "Wait a minute guys. I bet we aren't actually fighting Xenomorphs this time. I bet this scenario we are fighting a Predator"
PC #2: "Oh heck no, I bet you are right. We need to start laying traps, using the environment, and trying to see if we can penetrate the Predator's stealth suit. And let's start watching each others back for those red dots."

What do you do as a GM? For me, this changes nothing. The players are engaging with the scenario. What do you do?

Is it any different than,

PC #2: Geez, this guy was beheaded. And I can't find the head anywhere.
PC #1: When we get back to camp, Sgt Walls starts putting up traps and perimeter defenses around the camp. I also want to get some motion detectors and set them up around the perimeter of the camp and order everyone to start digging a bunker, that no one can be out of sight of the others, and tell them we can't sleep in the tents tonight.

Because for me it isn't different. I don't worry about or care if in his head he's figured out it's a Predator and he's using his OOC knowledge about Predators.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"the knowledge you get in game is always more reliable than your out of game assumptions"

100%

Once I realized that worrying about metagaming just was a self-inflicted burden that only served to increase my DMing workload and anxiety, I let go of it completely. I haven't cared for quite some time now where players get their knowledge to inform their characters' decisions. It's not my business as DM to tell them how to roleplay their characters after all. That said, a player relying on their own knowledge, not paying attention to telegraphed clues from the DM, and failing to test outside assumptions in the game world via their PC can oftentimes find trouble brewing for their PC and the party.

ETA: this is an example of a concept I learned here on ENWorld

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I realize now I need to give you very concrete examples.

For the last 3 years my group has only been meeting remotely over Discord. Now, supposing I was the sort of GM that got upset with players using their player knowledge to inform how they played the character. And suppose I then announced a table rule, "Don't read setting books and scenario books at "the table". Don't open up rule books in response to things that happen in the game." How would I be able to know when the table rule I just announced was being broken given that I can't see what pdfs or books the players have open? And what would I do about it if it was?

I don't know... it seems a weird rule, but maybe just because we all read the same books... even sharing them (although less since we too are virtual)
again I would just assume unless shown other wise they did what you asked.

So no, my table rule isn't then exactly as enforceable as anything else.

what do you do to enforce any rule...

here is one that I used to have "don't reroll take your first roll"
if someone rolled 3 times took the best and no one saw them they got away with it...

how do you enforce any rule? we are all friends so we normally just talk through it.

On the other hand, if I had a table rule that said, "Just because you announce the intention to attack first, it doesn't mean that you get any advantage on surprise or initiative. In order for one character to surprise another, the character must not be aware of the other. However, I will allow the following exception. If you achieve a friendly relationship with a target, if your Disguise check beats their Sense Motive check, I will allow surprise because they weren't expecting an attack because they saw you as a friend. Keep in mind this doesn't work if the target is only pretending to be friendly. If the situation is an NPC trying to attack a PC, I hold the last word on whether your character honestly believed the NPC to be a friend, but you can still roll to avoid surprise."

Isn't it then obvious, how I as the GM would enforce that as a table rule? Isn't it obvious I have enough authority over the game as the GM to enforce a table rule like that?

so what do you do when your players say no? how do you enforce a rule your players don't want to follow?

That's pretty close to my definition, though I'd make yours even more simple. I think of it as using out of character knowledge period, and why you do it doesn't really matter. Yes, most often players are using their out of character knowledge for in game benefit, but I don't think the motive matters as much as the action. Because again, neither of us are mind readers and to a large extent what your intention is doesn't matter as much as the result. And I think you kind of get this because you say:

yeah i guess we are on the same page.

So here is my point. Once the player has out of game knowledge that impacts the in game, it's too late to minimize it. That knowledge is out there and no matter what the player does, he'll be metagaming. So the only functional way to minimize metagaming is to minimize the leakage of out of game knowledge to the player. And the only important knowledge to minimize that is within the GM's purview.

I disagree... we can all just do our best to compartmentalize (again not saying anyone is perfect at it)

So we have the same goal. I'm using secret rolls when needed, and DM screens, and so forth in order to prevent having a situation where the player's game is ruined by his own out of game knowledge. Where as you are doing everything out in the open and then blaming the player for receiving the information you provided them. My way seems more functional and well more fun.

I trust my players not to need secrets.... you need to take extra steps and can't then ask the other players things like "Can you track the hidden mini for me"

my way seems way more open functinal and fun.

Moreover, everything in this thread is actually about a process of play that keeps my game in character more often than yours. That's my motive. Which is why when you describe processes of play that make the game more out of character and insist it's keeping it more in character, it is baffling.

right back at you...if someone does something in game I don't need all the information out of game... and neither does anyone else playing at my tables (Again as DM or Player) so it is baffling that using a skill you have out of game or knowledge out of game keeps you in character more.

Yes, but it's impossible to play without your full out of game knowledge. You can't erase what you know from your own head, and in the general case that knowledge is always informing your choices even when you are trying to not let it inform your choices. So you aren't actually offering solutions to the problem as I see it, where as I am offering solutions to the problem as I see it.

the solution is to in your mind run a mini simulation and think not "How should I the player react in the best way" but instead "what would the character do with only what they know"

It has nothing to do as trust. I know from my experience as a player that it's impossible to ignore what you know as a player. You can't not use what you know except by non-participation, which is itself metagaming.

I don't understand... do you not even try to think about what your character knows, how they interact with the world?

And I could say the same thing back to you. Because it's only at your table that the players have to worry about whether or not they are metagaming wrong. I've explained this to the players before. "Metagame to your hearts content. Just beware. I've got a 150ish IQ and 40 years of experience, so don't assume that you can just jump to conclusions about something. I won't metagame against you and change prepared text or invent counters on the fly, but the knowledge you get in game is always more reliable than your out of game assumptions"

I don't brag about my IQ, and I am neither the oldest, the smartest nor the longest playing member of my friends... so maybe this has more to do with "This isn't me vs you... this is US"

i am not 'making rules' nor am I 'telling you what to do' I am playing the game... sometimes as the DM sometimes as a PC. No one (that I know of) is TRYING to pull one over. no one is TRYING to get an advanatage... the advantage is we all have fun and tell a fun story.

I can make mistakes as a GM. If in an OOC comment I the GM accidently blurt out the real name of the BBEG rather than his assumed identity, and thereby give the players the key to the mystery, well that's not my players fault and I can't expect them not to act on the new found knowledge.

if it was out of character why would they WANT to metagame it...

this is a great example. a few years ago (precovid) we had an NPC traveling with us. The DM did not hide that he was the big bad Out Of Game... all of us Out of Game knew it. in game we trusted him and treated him as a friend and brought him everywhere... he even sat in as we planned the assault on HIS castle.

now there may have been a bit of surprise fun taken away because we knew he was going to betray us (but not when)... and when he did several of us helped remind the DM of what that NPC knew and could use against us... and that made it the hardest fight ever.

I won't demand they even try pretend they don't know the very information I just gave them and that it doesn't now inform their actions.

i mean the whole game is a game of pretend you are someone else... I don't understand

So, back to the concrete example. Suppose you are GM Alien RPG and the players are colonial marines exploring a jungle world as part of biological survey mission. And something happens in game that is pretty innocuous, like the players find one of the NPC has been beheaded in the jungle, but causes a player to think and this happens:

PC #1: "Wait a minute guys. I bet we aren't actually fighting Xenomorphs this time. I bet this scenario we are fighting a Predator"
PC #2: "Oh heck no, I bet you are right. We need to start laying traps, using the environment, and trying to see if we can penetrate the Predator's stealth suit. And let's start watching each others back for those red dots."

What do you do as a GM? For me, this changes nothing. The players are engaging with the scenario. What do you do?

as a DM I ask if they really wanted to play the game, and offer an alt game. I also start a discussion on how we as a table feel about it.
as a player I do the same (theory PC 3) and say "Hey we should be a little less on this" and ask for an out of game discussion

in both cases I would need clarity on what the table wanted to do as a whole.

Now there is part of me expecting a 'gotcha' any second where the players all agreed ahead of time that they know about pred v alei and everything and I am being the trouble maker because of missing info.

Is it any different than,

PC #2: Geez, this guy was beheaded. And I can't find the head anywhere.
PC #1: When we get back to camp, Sgt Walls starts putting up traps and perimeter defenses around the camp. I also want to get some motion detectors and set them up around the perimeter of the camp and order everyone to start digging a bunker, that no one can be out of sight of the others, and tell them we can't sleep in the tents tonight.

yes, one seems to be in character the other out... I would think nothing (DM or Player) about this. I would most likely (PC or NPC) agree.

Because for me it isn't different.

the second one seems like fun to me the first one seems boaring and weird.

I don't worry about or care if in his head he's figured out it's a Predator and he's using his OOC knowledge about Predators.

okay... but you understand that you are not the only way to run or play games... and that somepeople DON'T want talk about out of game knowladge being brought into game right? you get that?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

100%

Once I realized that worrying about metagaming just was a self-inflicted burden that only served to increase my DMing workload and anxiety, I let go of it completely. I haven't cared for quite some time now where players get their knowledge to inform their characters' decisions. It's not my business as DM to tell them how to roleplay their characters after all. That said, a player relying on their own knowledge, not paying attention to telegraphed clues from the DM, and failing to test outside assumptions in the game world via their PC can oftentimes find trouble brewing for their PC and the party.

okay so if we sat at your table and you had a maze you spent 6 hours building a physical rep for with reveling section, and when you went to get a soda I snapped a picture of your notes with the correct path (that remember changing mean taking down the dwarven forge like set up) and just openly take out my phone and say "I got this guys" and direct us through even knowing where the traps are because I have your notes now on my phone... is that fine?

at what point does it become cheating? At what point do you tell the trouble maker to knock it off... and I don't even mean YOU the DM I mean YOU the group... cause I can't imagine a group being even a little okay with the above.