D&D 5E Average damage or rolled damage?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Once the harm was explained to me? Sure.

What harm? Seriously, describe to me the harm that metagaming does to anything.

"You're playing a role. Part of that role includes the fact that your character is different from yourself, and has different knowledge from yourself - for example Joseph knows business where you do not, and you know computers in a way he does not. If you apply knowledge that you have but that Joseph does not, you detract from the fiction in the game, and make the game less fun for everyone else as a result. Don't do that."

...but if we are separating my knowledge from Joseph's, does that actually necessitate a different course of action? If not, then how can it be said that it is what I know, rather than what Joseph knows that has determined the course of action?

And to repeat my constant question: If a player can have their character take a particular action with no problem at all, but another player can't have an identical character in an identical situation take an identical action when the only thing not the same is the player's knowledge - how is that not using what the player knows and the character doesn't to determine what actions are allowed?

That's clearly not the case, since the term originated somewhere. Meaning that, sure enough, someone did determine the problem without having read it in a book or otherwise had it passed on to them.

The term originated in a time when it was considered to be par for the course that the DM assume the role of adversary against the players as the two sides engaged in a battle of wits against each other for... well... no real reason is given, since other parts of the same book saying to smack-down your players for trying to not be completely at your mercy clearly stated that the point of the game is not for someone to defeat someone else, but for everyone to work together to have a good time.

A thing can exist before someone defines it. And defining something does not necessarily cause it to come into existence.

You know that saying "The devil's greatest trick was to convince the world he didn't exist." Well metagaming is kind of the same thing in reverse - it's greatest trick being to make people believe that Brokk the Warrior trying to shove a monster into a fire because Todd thinks that seems cool and hopes it will hurt or kill the monster is okay, but that Brokk the Warrior trying to shove a monster into a fire because Todd thinks that seems cool and hopes he is right that the monster is a troll so the fire will hurt or kill it is cheating - when really there is no difference between the two in-character, where the "don't allow metagaming" philosophy lies that it is trying to keep things.

 

[delericho]

I must admit as a Guy who knows pretty much the entire dmg upside down n backwards I have to concentrate on not Meta gaming but then I have to wonder why trolls being harmed by fire isn't common knowledge

Aye, tolls + fire is really too common to make for a good example. Problem is that it's probably the classic "monster with weakness", and so we're stuck with it. But the principle works the same for trolls + fire as for ClickClicks + November.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

That's what I thought! It can be really hard to not know what we know.

I *literally* could not remember not knowing trolls were killed by fire, and the only person more baffled than the kids at the encounter was me.

At tables where I am forced to be thought-policed to the point that my character isn't allowed to make a guess, no matter how obvious, about anything I know about out-of-character... I find the only character concept I can play is an "I know literally everything about everything" scholarly sort so that at least whenever the DM says "hey, you can't do that because your character doesn't know it will work" I at least have the best chance of succeeding at the skill check needed to jump through his time-wasting hoop, which is easier than convincing the DM "nevermind what I know or don't - my character is guessing, so it doesn't matter that he doesn't know" as this thread makes evident.

 

[delericho]

What harm? Seriously, describe to me the harm that metagaming does to anything.

The other players enjoyed the game less as a result.

...but if we are separating my knowledge from Joseph's, does that actually necessitate a different course of action? If not, then how can it be said that it is what I know, rather than what Joseph knows that has determined the course of action?

As with pornography, it's damn hard to lock down a comprehensive definition, but you know it when you see it. And when you do see it, it becomes impossible to unsee it. And sure enough, when you see another player blatantly metagaming, it is very likely to impact on the fun of everyone else around the table. Evidently you aren't bothered by it, but I can assure you that others are.

Now, as I've said in another post, the trolls + fire example has the problem that it's a very common monster and a very common weakness - to the extent that the DM trying to enforce that the character doesn't know that is frankly absurd (if your encounter really depends on that not being known, you've got problems). But if it's some obscure monster from some obscure tome (such as lowkey13's ClickClicks + November), or the player reading the adventure between sessions to bypass every mystery, or the PCs using a failed roll to deduce that an ambush is coming and to start preparing, then there very likely is a problem.

As, in fact, you yourself have noted:

f what the player is learning is information that his character can not possibly have or guess at, then I'm fine with the player knowing it, but they'll never be able to use it because that's not playing in good faith, and I don't allow that at my table.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The other players enjoyed the game less as a result.

That is BS - you can't actually measure the difference in the players' enjoyment between you taking that in-character action because of what you know out of character, and you taking that in-character action for a different reason.

You can measure that the players' had their fun interrupted by arguing about why you were doing what you were doing, or measure that they didn't have much fun because of the action taken (no matter your reason for taking it).

And sure enough, when you see another player blatantly metagaming, it is very likely to impact on the fun of everyone else around the table.

Um... you realize that "blatantly metagaming" is only possible if people observing are actually already convinced that metagaming exists, right?

In a group of players that had never heard of metagaming, or a group of players that had absolutely no idea what the dice rolls were, your example of the Malkavian saying "that guy at the door is some badass lupine or a methuselah or soemthing" and another character reacting by saying "Nope, that's goofy as a duck in pudding, I don't believe it," does not have the same "don't do that, dude, not cool," result.

Evidently you aren't bothered by it, but I can assure you that others are.

People being bothered by something doesn't mean they aren't inventing it just to be bothered by it.

Now, as I've said in another post, the trolls + fire example has the problem that it's a very common monster and a very common weakness - to the extent that the DM trying to enforce that the character doesn't know that is frankly absurd (if your encounter really depends on that not being known, you've got problems). But if it's some obscure monster from some obscure tome (such as lowkey13's ClickClicks + November), or the player reading the adventure between sessions to bypass every mystery, or the PCs using a failed roll to deduce that an ambush is coming and to start preparing, then there very likely is a problem.

The commonality of the monster is irrelevant - if a character can guess, or just luck-into exploiting the weakness (i.e. they just happened to be talking about months of the year or the phonetic alphabet and said "november" in earshot of a clickclick, or they decided to shocking grasp some unheard of but lightning-vulnerable creature) then it is either fine for those actions to have happened no matter why the player was choosing them rather than something else, or you are policing the thoughts of your players.

And as for the "you failed to notice the ambush and are preparing for it anyway" example, the vast majority of those fall not into the players choosing actions the characters can't possibly think are appropriate in the given situation but into the DM leaving it up to the players to interpret what failing whatever check actually meant so they are thinking they definitely know enough to prepare for danger in a general sense even though they have no idea a specific danger is or isn't present, while the DM instead thinks that they made it clear to the players that they not only don't know a specific danger is present but that they are sure there are no dangers present specific or otherwise.

And then there are a super-rare few instances that the DM has actually got their players on the same page as to what is and isn't apparent to the characters by proper framing and understood descriptions, and the player with some knowledge that his character couldn't possibly have goes ahead and cheats.

But that is literally only when it's actually impossible to even guess at the information needed for a particular action - which most DM's concerned with metagaming far overestimate the frequency of, like when they complain about someone using fire when they haven't identified their foe as a troll and trolls as vulnerable to fire, or when someone sees a scary looking statue and decides to smash it with something even though they have no idea what a gargoyle is (which someone could choose to do just because the statue looks freaking and art with eyes always seems to "follow you" around the room).

As, in fact, you yourself have noted:

You are likely mis-judging what is or isn't "information that his character can not possibly have or guess at," if you think that what you are talking about is what I am noting there.

 

[billd91]

That is BS - you can't actually measure the difference in the players' enjoyment between you taking that in-character action because of what you know out of character, and you taking that in-character action for a different reason.

You can measure that the players' had their fun interrupted by arguing about why you were doing what you were doing, or measure that they didn't have much fun because of the action taken (no matter your reason for taking it).

Um... you realize that "blatantly metagaming" is only possible if people observing are actually already convinced that metagaming exists, right?

In a group of players that had never heard of metagaming, or a group of players that had absolutely no idea what the dice rolls were, your example of the Malkavian saying "that guy at the door is some badass lupine or a methuselah or soemthing" and another character reacting by saying "Nope, that's goofy as a duck in pudding, I don't believe it," does not have the same "don't do that, dude, not cool," result.

People being bothered by something doesn't mean they aren't inventing it just to be bothered by it.

So those of us who do get pissed off by metagaming are "inventing it". I'm calling shenanigans.

If I'm trying to role play a character honestly, trying to explore the world of a campaign through the experiences of my character, you can darn well bet I'm going to pissed when another player at the table presents an easy key to every encounter because he's relying on his encyclopedic player knowledge even if he's playing a fighter with an Intelligence of 3 and has no knowledge skills. And there are a lot of other players who would consider that kind of play unpleasant as well.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So those of us who do get pissed off by metagaming are "inventing it". I'm calling shenanigans.

If I'm trying to role play a character honestly, trying to explore the world of a campaign through the experiences of my character, you can darn well bet I'm going to pissed when another player at the table presents an easy key to every encounter because he's relying on his encyclopedic player knowledge even if he's playing a fighter with an Intelligence of 3 and has no knowledge skills. And there are a lot of other players who would consider that kind of play unpleasant as well.

I'm actually claiming that if you didn't already have the concept of metagaming in your head, that you'd not find yourself pissed off nearly as often as you think you would.

Even your example of a player with a minimal intelligence fighter and no knowledge skills shows you expect what isn't inherently present in the hypothetical scenario.

If that character were being played by a player you knew to know nothing about the game or the encounters you were facing and just happened to guess at the correct solutions (all through the filter of the character, role-playing the dumb-luck or stumbling discovery), do you expect you'd be pissed?

I don't.

And thus I question why the same character played the same way pisses you off if played by an experienced player.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I think there's absolutely a middle ground. Players are pretty good at figuring out, after just a few hits, what a monster's apparent average damage is, at least roughly. I think saying it has to be, or should be, either totally unknowable or totally fixed leave a wide excluded middle. I want there to be a degree of uncertainty (as both player and DM), but not total uncertainty. This helps provide that for us.

That said... As for what rolling adds to the equation? For me and my group, it's just more fun. I don't worry about analyzing why. I don't try to figure if it has to do with perceived randomness, or how much information they do or don't have. We just enjoy it more, and I'm quite content to let it lie at that.

Yeah. Average damage and dice are tools in the DM's tookit; it's not an all or none question, it's what makes the game better for this group at this particular moment in time.

 

[billd91]

I'm actually claiming that if you didn't already have the concept of metagaming in your head, that you'd not find yourself pissed off nearly as often as you think you would.

Even your example of a player with a minimal intelligence fighter and no knowledge skills shows you expect what isn't inherently present in the hypothetical scenario.

If that character were being played by a player you knew to know nothing about the game or the encounters you were facing and just happened to guess at the correct solutions (all through the filter of the character, role-playing the dumb-luck or stumbling discovery), do you expect you'd be pissed?

I don't.

And thus I question why the same character played the same way pisses you off if played by an experienced player.

Do I really need to repeat myself? If I'm honestly trying to play my character and use what I can expect my character to know, then yeah, I do get ticked off about players blatantly using out of character knowledge. We aren't playing the same game. That other player is interfering with my immersion in the game. What else do I need to explain?

Is really goes far beyond the lucky guesses a newb might come up with. Anybody might figure out that burning stops regeneration or that devils will be immune to fire. But demons immune to electricity? Or that foo creatures have a limit number of times they turn to stone? That's not something a newb would guess.

 

[ehenning]

The answer is to occasionally throw a monster at the party that i.e., keeps them on their toes, one that they have never seen before because it is unique. No rules cover it, so they have to find out the hard way what it’s like.

Fin

I love to use 3rd party monsters (5th Edition Foes, the upcoming Tomb of Beasts, etc) or modify monsters in the MM. As the DM, I want my player's characters to have some idea of what's going on around them, but always feel there is an element of uncertainty. Is that a troll? No, it's a Zombie Troll! Etc.