A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

Not at all. In fact I posted the exact opposite of that:

You posted the opposite, but the logic you used applies to monsters as well.

To elaborate yet further: whereas some versions of D&D direct new players to read the monster section (eg Moldvay Basic) and others are silent on the matter (AD&D, 3E, 4e); and whereas it is a ubiquitious feature of D&D play that one encounters the same monsters in new campaigns, and hence knows the weaknesses despite never having had this particular PC deal with them before; most modules that I'm familiar with have a bit somewhere near the start which says Don't read this if you're going to play it as opposed to GM it.

The existence of skills designed to let the PCs know monster abilities and weaknesses proves at least for 3e and 4e, that the players are not intended to just be able to pull the knowledge out of their rears and use it in game.

The game provides no rules for actually dealing with this, because when the game was invented it was taken for granted that players, being good wargamers, would do what you call "metagaming" without anyone looking for an ingame rationale.

The game provided skills for it in 3e and 4e, and 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

Come on now. If you don't see the difference between the example I gave and the one you decided to come up with, then I don't think there's any reason in discussion, is there? It's like we have two gunshot victims, and you want to treat the guy whose pinky toe was shot off the same as the one who was hit in the head. "But they're both gunshot wounds!!!"

The point is a valid one. Steal $100 or steal $100,000, both are bad. Sure, it's a matter of degree, but it's a matter of degree between two bad things.

I said "veteran players" for a reason. If you've played D&D for any significant length of time, you know trolls are vulnerable to fire. For a veteran player to come up with an excuse why his character knows that is perfectly fine in my game. I can understand why it may not be for your game. But doing so means that such authority is in the hands of the DM. Which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on what the DM and players want from the game. D&D is meant to be a largely DM driven game, so I don't think it would typically be a problem.

When I said that such a DM was being a jerk, it's because he ignored the cue that his veteran players didn't want to play the "pretend not to know" game. The player came up with a way to bypass it. To me, this is a player contributing....he's come up with an element that helped explain his character's actions, and also cued teh DM to the type of stuff he'd like to do in the game....or at least the type of stuff he'd rather not do, in this case. To me, that's helpful; I want to know what my players want out of a game. If the DM chooses to thwart that and forces the players to play out the scenario in some arbitrary "when-is-it-okay-to-use-fire" encounter, then yeah, I'd say that DM is forcing a "Mother May I" situation, and he's possibly ignoring his players' desires for play.

The players have to ask "Mother May I use Fire?" and the DM sits back and says "No" until some arbitrary point where he then decides "Okay, yes, you can use fire."

So I'm going to counter with the players being the jerks. They went into a game knowing that the DM doesn't allow metagaming and by virtue of sitting down to play, they agreed to those terms. Going back on it later with the troll is fairly jerkish behavior.

And once again, denial does not equate to "Mother May I."

There is no objective definition of the term as it relates to RPG play, as this thread has proven.

Metagaming being out of character knowledge being brought into the game is the standard(by far the most common) definition. Sure, you'll get corner cases like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] who like to try and redefine things to fit their narratives, but that doesn't work and just ends up causing arguments.

Maybe your unyielding opinion on what the term means is the obstacle to actually listening to what others are saying? Would you say that you see why I use the term Mother May I, and it's just a case of you wish I'd use another term? Or are you unclear of what the actual issue I'm describing may be?

To be honest, it's a pejorative no matter what your intent behind the use, so I really don't care why you are using it. It's a term that does not belong in civil conversation.

What about the non-binary third option; the DM allows some metagaming? I mean, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of D&D games fall into this category, so it seems odd to leave it out.

If he allows some metagaming, he allows metagaming. You either allow it(in whole or in part) or you do not.

No. You know the differences between these two examples, so stop treating them the same. Yes, they are similar in that they use player knowledge. But they are also different, and the differences are more important than the similarity.

Theft is theft. Cheating is cheating. Metagaming is metagaming. A difference in degree does not change that for me. If someone altered 1 die roll, and another person metagamed the module, I would treat them both the same. They would get their one warning and the next instance of cheating would be their last at a game that I run.

Since you seem to feel that degree matters, and metagaming a troll is okay, but metagaming a module is not, where do you draw the line? At what point does metagaming become cheating for you?

 

[pemerton]

The game provided skills for it in 3e and 4e, and 5e.

These are devices for allowing an ignorant player to oblige the GM to inform him/her.

They don't tell us that players who are already informed are meant to do whatever-it-is that you think they're meant to do. (And frankly I don't know what that is.)

 

[Maxperson]

Discovery? Nope. There is nothing to discover.

Competition? Nope. There is nothing truly being tested.

Creation? I think is where someone like Max, Lanefan, Saelorn disagree with the rest of us. My personal take on this is simple. A creation of a fiction that I'm interested in partaking in needs to have players advocating for their PCs as hard as they can. If the rules or gaming ethos says "this yields degenerate play despite the fact that Discovery and Competition are both null in this moment of play", then there is something wrong with either (a) the system or (b) the content being introduced by the GM, or (c) both.

So there is discovery there. When I play a character, I have no idea what all my PC knows. I do know that he does not know everything I know, and I know that he knows things that I don't. Through roleplay, exploration of the world, background, and die rolls, I discover what he knows as I play the game.

Creation is also there, as my playstyle still involves creating the fiction of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

These are devices for allowing an ignorant player to oblige the GM to inform him/her.

Um, no. They are skills for the PC to find out what abilities and weaknesses monsters have. The rules say so. You can change it for your game to only apply to ignorant players, but the game makes no such distinction.

 

[pemerton]

Um, no. They are skills for the PC to find out what abilities and weaknesses monsters have. The rules say so.

Here is the rule for monster knowledge checks in the 4e Rules Compendium (p 130):

Refer to these rules whenever a character makes a check to identify a monster, regardless of the knowledge skill he or she is using. The DM typically tells a player which skill to use, based on the creature’s origin or relevant keyword. If a monster’s origin and keyword suggest the use of two different skills, the DM decides which skill can be used to identify the monster, and might allow the use of either skill. . . .​

Here is the same rule from the 4e PHB (p 180):

Regardless of the knowledge skill you’re using, refer to the rules here when making a check to identify a monster. . . .​

Both entries go on to state DCs for learning various bits of information about a monster.

Both entries also - as I have emphasised - explain that they govern checks made to learn stuff about monsters. They say nothing about other ways in which a character might know something about a monster (eg because the GM tells the player; because the player already knows; etc). And obviiously if a player already knows about a monster then there is no particular reason why s/he would need to make a check to identify and learn about it. Hence, as I said, these rules are a device for players who don't have that knowledge to oblige the GM to share it with them.

A table could adopt further conventions around this: for instance, I can imagine a table which took the view that player A, who knows, shouldn't tell player B, who is ignorant, unless one or the other successfully makes a check (which would then provide an ingame rationalisation of A's PC's knowledge and hence of A's PC's communication to B's PC). But that would be a table convention/"house rule". There is no discussion of this sort of thing in the rules for monster knowledge checks.

 

[Maxperson]

Here is the rule for monster knowledge checks in the 4e Rules Compendium (p 130):

Refer to these rules whenever a character makes a check to identify a monster, regardless of the knowledge skill he or she is using. The DM typically tells a player which skill to use, based on the creature’s origin or relevant keyword. If a monster’s origin and keyword suggest the use of two different skills, the DM decides which skill can be used to identify the monster, and might allow the use of either skill. . . .​

Here is the same rule from the 4e PHB (p 180):

Regardless of the knowledge skill you’re using, refer to the rules here when making a check to identify a monster. . . .​

Both entries go on to state DCs for learning various bits of information about a monster.

Both entries also - as I have emphasised - explain that they govern checks made to learn stuff about monsters. They say nothing about other ways in which a character might know something about a monster (eg because the GM tells the player; because the player already knows; etc). And obviiously if a player already knows about a monster then there is no particular reason why s/he would need to make a check to identify and learn about it. Hence, as I said, these rules are a device for players who don't have that knowledge to oblige the GM to share it with them.

A table could adopt further conventions around this: for instance, I can imagine a table which took the view that player A, who knows, shouldn't tell player B, who is ignorant, unless one or the other successfully makes a check (which would then provide an ingame rationalisation of A's PC's knowledge and hence of A's PC's communication to B's PC). But that would be a table convention/"house rule". There is no discussion of this sort of thing in the rules for monster knowledge checks.

This is a school of Red Herring. Nobody said that the DM couldn't just give the PC the knowledge. The DM is free to rule that every bit of the MM is in every PC's head if he wants. What I said was that the skills were there to give PCs knowledge, and the are. That's the entire reason for their existence as monster lore skills. Not for the ignorant. Not for the new. Not for the old. For everyone.

In 4e this fact is backed up on page 180 of the PHB with the Monster Knowledge Check section.

Monster Knowledge: No action required—either you know the answer or you don’t.
✦ DC: See the table.
✦ Success: You identify a creature as well as its type, typical temperament, and keywords. Higher results give you information about the creature’s powers, resistances, and vulnerabilities.
✦ Failure: You don’t recall any pertinent information. The DM might allow you to make a new check if further information comes to light.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], did you read the bits of the rules that I bolded: the monster knowledge checks apply when a check is made to determine a PC's knowledge. If the PC already has the knowledge because, for instance, the player has the knowledge and is acting on it, then obviously no check is required and the monster knowledge check rules do not apply.

The point being, therefore, that [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s example - of a player narrating his/her PC having been told a tale about trolls by an adventuring uncle, thereby rationalising in the fiction how it is that the PC (like the player) knows that fire is needed to kill trolls - is completely consistent with the 4e rules for player and PC knowledge about monsters.

 

[Aldarc]

To be honest, it's a pejorative no matter what your intent behind the use, so I really don't care why you are using it. It's a term that does not belong in civil conversation.

It still amazes me that you can say this while also unironically using the terms "metagaming" and "railroading" as pejoratives.

 

[Numidius]

Mother, meta i?

A TPK is about to occurr. One PC might give resolutive help, but dares not because metagaming. Players and Gm pause for a moment... what happens then?