D&D General Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?

[Mort]

And the question is whether this is an acceptable kind of metagaming because it doesn't result in "unfair advantage" or whether it's still unacceptable because it's still using player knowledge. In the point of view of the anti-metagamers, that is. I don't care one way or another.

Right is it only a problem when the Player uses it to benefit? Frankly, if the player is being a detriment to the party (actively leading them away from cool stuff for example), I'd consider that worse!

I prefer to avoid the mental headache and it hasn't been a problem at all since I stopped caring about metagaming - and in the years since, no player has done anything to change my mind back (they all want to have fun kicking butt and exploring the world too, we're all on the same page).

 

[overgeeked]

I think it's fair to expect the players to expect traps in a dungeon, castle, etc. They should be looking for them.

If they don’t, they’ll learn to real quick. It might take a few characters to get there, but they’ll get there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A: Using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.
B: Not using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.
C: Not using fire on a troll because you don't know anything about it.

Close in process isn't relevant. It's a true dichotomy. Either you bring in OOC knowledge or you don't. If you do you are metagaming. If you don't you are not.

Using an alternate definition than the rest of us who say it's cheating in our games(because we're using the true dichotomy meaning) is worthless. All the, "Yes it is still metagaming!!!" arguments will fall flat because that's not what metagaming means.

B is also a false definition. Either the player is going to use fire because his PC knows it's weak to it, or he isn't because his PC doesn't know it's weak to it. At no point is the player ever going to be like, "Well, I know the troll is weak to fire, so I won't use fire." and leave it at that. Edit: this was written poorly. The action is not a dichotomy, only the definition.

It's not the opposite. A and B from @Xamnam are both instances of a player making decisions on what his character does based on knowledge that he has as a player. They are similar in that regard.

Just imagine what the character could do in that moment, entirely separate of the player. The character has no idea that fire is necessary to harm the trolls. The character may try another attack first. The character may actually try fire first. He may either make a lucky guess, or just blunder into the trick by blind luck!

I think we all agree that this is something that can happen, correct?

Now, bring the player into it. How can the character now guess or blunder into using fire? How is that possibility maintained once you're considering the player knowledge? How can C happen?

It can't. No matter what, you're going to call it metagaming and cheating. Which means that what may happen in the fiction is now subject to out of game considerations. That is metagaming. The character is now incapable of choosing fire, which is something that could conceivably happen.

This is why people describe metagaming as often being the fault of the GM, or that attempts to prevent it often actually bring it directly to the forefront.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's say I'm playing an online, competitive game. I know the cheat codes to the game to cheat but I don't use them. According to your logic, I'm still cheating. That's illogical and meaningless, as is the definition you've come up with.

somehow the very act of chooseing not to cheat is cheating is a strange argument, and I can't agree with your analogy more.

I was not raised on a farm. I was not trained to hunt. I was not really trained to fight in a war.
If I play a 24 year old half elf kid that grew up on his dad's farm hunted for deer then joined the milita, now is out as a level 3 ranger trying to adventure, I have to take A LOT of my own thoughts away and put myself in that kids' shoes.
That is the game. take the role of someone you are not.

Somehow the argument that I can't put aside what I know seems odd... if that is the case how can I RP someone very diffrent then me?

I am a guy. I am human (at least I think). I am in my midlife. When my NPC is a woman in her 90's that is a halfing that is already an alien mind I need to think like... of course I have to put aside things I know out of game. (just like chooseing not to use the cheat codes)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

At a certain point you have to trust your players and simply ask them to not metagame as much as possible. It's all anyone can expect.

100% this. We are mostly adults (at my tables atleast mid teens are the young ones 99% of the time) we just say "hey. lets all agree to only act useing in game info"

 

[Oofta]

Robin Hood only splits arrows. You split hairs. Well done.

I think

A: Using game cheat code to give you infinite ammo to let you win the competition​

B: Not using a cheat code that you know because it would give you unfair advantage​

C: Not using a cheat code because you don't know the cheat code​

is using similar logic as

A: Using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.​

B: Not using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.​

C: Not using fire on a troll because you don't know anything about it.​

Then concluding that A and B are basically the same thing. I disagree. Whether metagaming is cheating or not is up the the DM and something that should be discussed as a group.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think

A: Using game cheat code to give you infinite ammo to let you win the competition​

B: Not using a cheat code that you know because it would give you unfair advantage​

C: Not using a cheat code because you don't know the cheat code​

is using similar logic as

A: Using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.​

B: Not using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.​

C: Not using fire on a troll because you don't know anything about it.​

Then concluding that A and B are basically the same thing. I disagree. Whether metagaming is cheating or not is up the the DM and something that should be discussed as a group.

There's a key element missing from your analogy.

In the video game example, there is no character knowledge. There is no distinction between what the character in the game knows and what the player knows.

For an RPG, both A and B are examples of the player making a decision for the character based on information they know only as a player. In one case, he uses fire and in the other he doesn't, but in both cases that decision is made because he knows about the weakness to fire.

This element is entirely absent from video games. No one would ever accuse someone playing a video game of metagaming. That's not the way the game works.

So the analogy doesn't work.

 

[Xamnam]

I think

A: Using game cheat code to give you infinite ammo to let you win the competition​

B: Not using a cheat code that you know because it would give you unfair advantage​

C: Not using a cheat code because you don't know the cheat code​

is using similar logic as

A: Using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.​

B: Not using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.​

C: Not using fire on a troll because you don't know anything about it.​

Then concluding that A and B are basically the same thing. I disagree. Whether metagaming is cheating or not is up the the DM and something that should be discussed as a group.

Submitting the argument this way helped me to see your point more, so I appreciate that. That said, I don't think the A and B are "basically the same thing". They differ wildly in effect, obviously. I'm not trying to say they result in the same thing, all I'm saying is the process of applying outside information happens in them, as opposed to C.

I agree that what the table wants is the most important consideration of how to deal with this sort of thing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Further, is it metagaming if at least one other player at the table knows that you've played through or DMed this same dungeon?
At an anti-metagaming table, if the person with that knowledge then argues to go the way you choose NOT to go, is that a potential problem?

Personally, I refuse to metagame because I'm not going to give Mark Zuckerberg any more of my money.

 

[Oofta]

There's a key element missing from your analogy.

In the video game example, there is no character knowledge. There is no distinction between what the character in the game knows and what the player knows.

For an RPG, both A and B are examples of the player making a decision for the character based on information they know only as a player. In one case, he uses fire and in the other he doesn't, but in both cases that decision is made because he knows about the weakness to fire.

This element is entirely absent from video games. No one would ever accuse someone playing a video game of metagaming. That's not the way the game works.

So the analogy doesn't work.

Good grief. I'm not saying the video game person is metagaming, where did you even get that? It's the player knowing something that can give them an advantage and choosing to use it or not. Stating that having knowledge you don't use is actually still metagaming feels like an attempt to muddy the waters and a useless narrative gimmick.

In any case, most people that have been playing for a while have some metagame knowledge they can choose to use or not. It's pretty much inevitable. I just ask people that they try to minimize impact on their PC's actions.