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

[Oofta]

You can’t choose not to use that knowledge. You can choose to act in a way other than the way that knowledge would otherwise lead you to act, which is itself using that knowledge. So, again, what you’re actually describing as metagaming is not using OOC knowledge but taking actions that OOC knowledge would lead you to take.

I was just pointing out the standard definition of metagaming. Nobody I know would accuse a person with OOC that doesn't use it to be metagaming.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's more an argument in favor of only putting traps where they would logically be, which itself is a form of telegraphing.

It certainly is a form of telegraphing, so yes, the argument is a good one in favor of telegraphing. Note also the specific lines about “looking for a stone that’s shinier from all the times it has been touched” and “needing there to be a way for the rogue to find [magical glyphs].” Those are also telegraphs.

The players should know to search the area leading up to the royal treasury for traps.

Probably, but for my preferences this alone isn’t enough of a telegraph. My standard is that a player who falls into the trap should be able to think back and realize the hint that they had missed that would have allowed them to avoid the trap. Now, this is just my personal standard, but I think it’s a good one because it insures traps always feel like they could have been avoided, which keeps them from feeling unfair.

 

[Irlo]

I have played a decisive and opinionated character and played through adventures with which I was somewhat familiar. I often recused myself from group decisions, even though it was absolutely out of character. I would consider that recusal to be metagaming (although it might not meet the definitions of metagaming that some have offered up here) and it helped everyone enjoy the game more.

If I know in advance that I’m playing through a familiar adventure, I’ll make a more passive follow-along type of personality.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was just pointing out the standard definition of metagaming. Nobody I know would accuse a person with OOC that doesn't use it to be metagaming.

Right, because it’s about acting in a way that knowledge would lead you to. If you use that knowledge to avoid acting in the way it makes you want to, nobody calls it metagaming (even though it is still using that OOC knowledge).

 

[Oofta]

But it matters.

In a game where the DM was REALLY concerned about metagaming, I'd NEVER play a swiss army knife type mage. I'd be too concerned that my own knowledge would get into my decisions all of the time - or that my decision to NOT act on my knowledge was overcompensating and hurting the group somehow. And I certainly wouldn't want to have to justify decisions to the DM all the time, yuck.

I just don't see how often it's really that big of an issue. I used to play public games where I would DM and then play occasionally play a mod twice if the group needed an extra player. Not acting on OOC knowledge was not hard. My PCs always go left when there's a choice and no obvious answer. Not only does that avoid metagaming for exploring, it tends to avoid some of the worst encounters on a fairly regular basis.

Whether you personally would want to play a module you know do so is another issue. But I don't see how you can avoid having some OOC knowledge, especially when it comes to monsters. If you've hit a troll before, you know you need to finish it off with fire.

Saying that every D&D player who faces a troll a second time is metagaming makes the word meaningless IMHO.

 

[Maxperson]

It certainly is a form of telegraphing, so yes, the argument is a good one in favor of telegraphing. Note also the specific lines about “looking for a stone that’s shinier from all the times it has been touched” and “needing there to be a way for the rogue to find [magical glyphs].” Those are also telegraphs.

Probably, but for my preferences this alone isn’t enough of a telegraph. My standard is that a player who falls into the trap should be able to think back and realize the hint that they had missed that would have allowed them to avoid the trap. Now, this is just my personal standard, but I think it’s a good one because it insures traps always feel like they could have been avoided, which keeps them from feeling unfair.

I'm not saying your standard is a bad one, and sometimes depending on the trap and circumstances I do similar things. I'm saying that I don't feel that it's always necessary to telegraph traps. Sometimes the king wears down the stones that are not stepped on to keep them looking the same, or cleans the shiny stone, making it blend in again. People are smart enough to keep traps hidden. It's when the traps are not maintained, or maintained sloppily that telegraphing is warranted.

 

[Mort]

Saying that every D&D player who faces a troll a second time is metagaming makes the word meaningless IMHO.

Yes, which is why I prefer the much easier and less troublesome - don't be a jerk at the table.

 

[overgeeked]

If a player is playing the game in good faith it shouldn't matter if they're metagaming or not.

Trouble is, for a lot of people, the act of metagaming means they’re not playing in good faith. Good faith RPGing means to act in character and make decisions based on in-character knowledge. To do otherwise is playing in bad faith.

 

[Maxperson]

Saying that every D&D player who faces a troll a second time is metagaming makes the word meaningless IMHO.

Yep, and it's an unnecessary distinction to make as you can pretty much always make the decision without influence from OOC knowledge.

 

[Charlaquin]

Saying that every D&D player who faces a troll a second time is metagaming makes the word meaningless IMHO.

That’s exactly my point. If metagaming is acting on OOC information, then it’s a useless term, because if you know trolls are weak to fire, then either attacking a troll with fire or choosing not to attack a troll with fire are acting on your knowledge that they’re weak to fire. The only way metagaming is a meaningful term is if it means “taking actions that OOC information would lead you to take.” In that case, obviously attacking the troll with fire when you know trolls are weak to fire is metagaming, and not attacking it with fire isn’t. Where this can run into problems though is that people don’t always agree on what information a character knows or doesn’t know, and they don’t always agree on how a given piece of OOC information would lead them to act.