D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

Arial Black said:

I've just remembered! That druid didn't use slots to cast water breathing on the party! It's a ritual, so no slots used, can be cast on 10 willing creatures and lasts 24 hours!

Why would you not do that, every single day?

Click to expand...

If it can be cast for free and lasts all day, sure - why not? (was that in 4e?)

In my game, however, all spells use slots.

Lanefan

iserith said:

So it triggers you.

Click to expand...

Trigger me too, it would.

Lanefan said:

Mechanics, character development, storytelling: all are part of the game, and this should - but sometimes doesn't - go without saying.

However, are any of those three things better served by characters acting on knowledge they do not and can not have? Or by players basing their characters' actions on outside knowledge rather than what the character itself would reasonably know? That's the double-headed core question here as I see it; my answers are "no" and "no", and my contention is that they in fact serve the latter two worse.

Click to expand...

Why would it matter?

Here's a situation I had in my pirate campaign a long time ago:

Setting: The players are about to enter the catacombs underneath an old church:

Player1: There's probably going to be undead down there. Zombies, mummies or skeletons. We'd better bring some holy water. I know our DM, he would definitely do that.

Player2: But would our characters know about that?

Me: Don't worry about it. It's just a game. Prepare however you wish to prepare for this dungeon, and don't worry about meta knowledge. Maybe your characters have their own reasons to take these precautions. That is up to you.
Player1: Well, my character is a pretty superstitious guy. He would definitely want to bring some supplies to deal with what ever might be down there.
Player2: Okay, I get some holy water as well.

End result: The players go into the dungeon fully prepared to deal with undead, and they have a blast. The meta-gaming issue has not been brought up ever since, and we've been playing this campaign for over 2 years now.

Imaculata said:

Here's a situation I had in my pirate campaign a long time ago:

Setting: The players are about to enter the catacombs underneath an old church:

Player1: There's probably going to be undead down there. Zombies, mummies or skeletons. We'd better bring some holy water. I know our DM, he would definitely do that.

Player2: But would our characters know about that?

Me: Don't worry about it. It's just a game. Prepare however you wish to prepare for this dungeon, and don't worry about meta knowledge. Maybe your characters have their own reasons to take these precautions. That is up to you.
Player1: Well, my character is a pretty superstitious guy. He would definitely want to bring some supplies to deal with what ever might be down there.
Player2: Okay, I get some holy water as well.

End result: The players go into the dungeon fully prepared to deal with undead, and they have a blast. The meta-gaming issue has not been brought up ever since, and we've been playing this campaign for over 2 years now.

Click to expand...

Props to Player 2 - s/he gets it!

Player 1 doesn't, really: that person is gaming the DM. Or making a joke, hard to tell in print.

Were I the DM, I'd probably replace your "Me:" line above with

Me: "Good question, Player 2."
= [if the party has a Cleric or other divine agent] "Player 3, you're a Cleric - you recognize this sort of place to be just the sort of prime undead breeding ground your trainers warned you about." (then let Player 3 take it from there)
= [if no Cleric or other divine agent present] "Each of you, roll a d20 to give me a general idea of how much lore you've heard regarding undead, what they are, and how to deal with them." (then provide exposition based on the rolls)

That said, what you're doing obviously works for you and your crew so no worries!

Lanefan

Lanefan said:

Props to Player 2 - s/he gets it!

Player 1 doesn't, really: that person is gaming the DM. Or making a joke, hard to tell in print.

Were I the DM, I'd probably replace your "Me:" line above with

Me: "Good question, Player 2."
= [if the party has a Cleric or other divine agent] "Player 3, you're a Cleric - you recognize this sort of place to be just the sort of prime undead breeding ground your trainers warned you about." (then let Player 3 take it from there)
= [if no Cleric or other divine agent present] "Each of you, roll a d20 to give me a general idea of how much lore you've heard regarding undead, what they are, and how to deal with them." (then provide exposition based on the rolls)

That said, what you're doing obviously works for you and your crew so no worries!

Lanefan

Click to expand...

Well the think to understand I think, is that there 'might' have been undead down there (in which case the players enter well prepared),

-or there might not (and the players end up bringing the wrong spells).

Either way, they have fun. It doesn't matter. So why are some DM's making such a big fuss about it?

Neither player was wrong in this example, nor was any of the two 'more right' than the other. You can approach the game from a strategic point of view; maximizing your chances for success. That is a very gamy way to approach a dungeon, and not wrong in my opinion. Or you can take a very role playing approach, and focus a lot on what your character would know and do. This also isn't wrong. And the two philosophies don't have to be at odds with each other either. There does not need to be a conflict here. You can allow both, and it would not change the difficulty of the dungeon one bit.

Lanefan said:

Player 1 doesn't, really: that person is gaming the DM. Or making a joke, hard to tell in print.

Click to expand...

He was doing a bit of both. He's anticipating what sort of challenge I might throw at the party, and making a friendly joke at my expense as well. Its all good. It's fine for players to make OC comments and jokes about their current predicament, but it is also fine for players to approach the game as a game. These are challenges that they must try and overcome, and they are not obligated to pretend that they are not players trying to 'beat' a game. They can use their own intellect to prepare for a dungeon, and bring what ever they want to bring.

Don't most players stock up on healing items before going into a dungeon? I think an argument could be made that probably all players do so, because they (not their characters) know a dungeon is going to have monsters, with maybe a boss at the end.

If players didn't occasionally put aside the role playing, and approached the game as a game, I think most parties wouldn't make it very far.

Btw, is the challenge of a dungeon completely negated when the players expect undead, and it turns out, yeah it is undead?

For me, there's more to the challenge of a dungeon than just the type of enemies they'll face. The players could look up the exact stats of all the monsters in the dungeon, and bring all the anti-undead weaponry in the world, and they still wouldn't be completely prepared for what I have in store for them.



Here is the map of the catacombs from my example. The players can prepare all they want, but they don't know the dungeon is half flooded, thus halving their movement speed, or that there are underwater mummies waiting in ambush in various rooms. They don't know any of the traps or secret tunnels, they'll still have to overcome all the water hazards and swimming sections. And they don't know how to deal with the main threat that lurks in the vault at the end (with all the creepy black roots extending out of it).

So by all means, bring all the holy water and anti undead spells you want. And if I feel the dungeon is too easy, I can just raise the difficulty a little. No meta gaming is going to change the difficulty of the dungeon here.

secondhander said:

...the first thing he did in a fight with one is to pick up a fiery log to attack it...

Click to expand...

Just have to point out, that's not what happened in the scenario presented. The character was tending the fire, and already had a fiery log in hand as a result.

Interesting thing, that, how so many of the statements that suggest something hinky is going on with the way I was playing my character in the scenario always manage to not keep the details straight.

Lanefan said:

And now to catch up on yet another thread explosion...
Maybe there are no clues. Or maybe the character missed them.

The flip side to this, unless a DM is very careful to always describe every little thing (which can get tedious in a hurry for all involved), is that the DM only starts pointing out things like mildew or rot when it matters (i.e. when there's a water-based challenge nearby) rather than all the other times when it doesn't...leading to players out-of-character saying (or thinking) "Uh-oh - the DM's suddenly talking about rot and mildew - better look out for a water trap". Seen this before, I have, and it bugs me every time.

Click to expand...

Or, the DM acknowledges that they aren't going to always describe every little thing, and considers the part where he describes the characters entering a dungeon of some sort to have included all manner of minor details that he hasn't specifically mentioned, and as a result of that doesn't consider it unbelievable that the character could believe that some reason for whatever precautionary spell exists.

To phrase that illustratively: If the DM acknowledges that mildew, dampness, or faint sounds of water are probably part of a dungeon that has water somewhere nearby, and that the DM isn't actually going to cover every single detail of every single environment, maybe the DM won't think the character is behaving unexpectedly by casting water breathing.

Lanefan said:

I don't think you've said this but I'm 99% sure others in your camp have...

Click to expand...

I don't have a "camp".

Lanefan said:

Unless it one-shots you, on the receiving end of which I've been more than once.

Click to expand...

Me too... but I've never been on either side of that event and had anyone think "Hooray!" for the game having included that possibility.

secondhander said:

You really come across as abrasive to me, elf crusher, and I am trying not to be that way I this thread.

Click to expand...

You write in a measured, reasonable tone, but you have repeatedly expressed denigrating opinions about others' playstyle. It's extremely annoying.

Yes, it's a public forum and we should feel free to express our opinions, and but there is a difference between "I play this way" and "the way you play is X." Especially when X is "not roleplaying".

Lanefan said:

However, are any of those three things better served by characters acting on knowledge they do not and can not have?

Click to expand...

By not wasting time on gratuitous play-acting, and/or pretending to solve challenges that aren't, in order to move the story forward to a point where there is a genuine challenge, and/or somebody has something innovative to contribute.

My issue as a player is: Who are you to say what my character knows or doesn't know? Maybe I've been to this area before. Maybe I met a man that told me about trolls and fire.

It's not about likelihood. People get struck by lightning. Airplanes crash. Just because there is a small probability of something happening doesn't mean it didn't or that my character should be judged on how likely it is that someone would know that or do that or have been in that situation.

Lanefan said:

Mechanics, character development, storytelling: all are part of the game, and this should - but sometimes doesn't - go without saying.

However, are any of those three things better served by characters acting on knowledge they do not and can not have? Or by players basing their characters' actions on outside knowledge rather than what the character itself would reasonably know? That's the double-headed core question here as I see it; my answers are "no" and "no", and my contention is that they in fact serve the latter two worse.

Don't matter much...adventuring is still adventuring when you get right down to it, regardless of the backdrop.

Both of which are, in a way, just more versions of "playing in bad faith" as I see it. I can't speak to the 'strip it down to raw mechanics' as I've not seen that one used (though it's been a long thread, I easily could have missed it many times over), but in my view the 'powergaming' charge holds some water; players who use info they or their characters shouldn't have are - quite often - just looking to squeeze out another advantage for themselves or their party in the same manner as when they build their character(s) to squeeze out every possible numeratic advantage whether it makes in-game sense or not...which to me is also playing in bad faith.

Lanefan

Click to expand...

Elfcrusher said:

By not wasting time on gratuitous play-acting, and/or pretending to solve challenges that aren't

Click to expand...

Er...er... [biting virtual tongue so as not to get banned] ...ouch!

Challenges that aren't to the player still are to the character; and if you see solving those in-character challenges as 'gratuitous play-acting' then...well...can't help you.

in order to move the story forward to a point where there is a genuine challenge, and/or somebody has something innovative to contribute.

Click to expand...

Again, to the character it *is* a genuine challenge, even if the player has seen it all before; and it's down to the player to play the character accordingly. From the player side the challenge might be working out how *this* particular character, with (hopefully) its own outlook on life/alignment/personality/traits/whatever that's different from his previous characters, handles the in-game challenge in character and does so in an innovative - and maybe not always perfect or correct or optimal - way.

Entertainment, lads and lasses! Why else do we do this?

Lanefan