D&D 5E Average damage or rolled damage?

[Lanefan]

Again, it seems that the distinction between using knowledge the character can't possibly have (which I call cheating and others call metagaming) and using knowledge that maybe the character has, maybe they don't, or maybe isn't even necessary in order to do what the character did (which I say isn't metagaming and others say is) has failed to be realized. When I say "metagaming" I am referring only to the later, not the former.

Where when the rest of us use it we mean both.

The "maybe, maybe not" knowledge issue can easily be solved with a die roll to see if the character has that information going in or not - we do this all the time.

The game not being as much fun because you know what is coming up (which probably included impossible to have knowledge) is not a guarantee of the game not being as much fun because my fighter decides to light a monster on fire (and that happens to be beneficial) or other similar instances of me (experienced and knowledgeable player) playing a character who has lucky guesses from time to time and tries "crazy" things which manage to work out often.

Perhaps, but I'd just as soon try other crazy things and have 'em work out wrong.

And some common-to-players knowledge might in fact be impossible to have in the game world. If your game world has no such thing as Trolls and your party has just planeshifted elsewhere and found a few of 'em, the characters won't and can't know their vulnerabilities and resistances even though the players are all over that stuff. Then what do you do?

Lan-"crazy things working out wrong is the short story of most of my characters' lives"-efan

 

[delericho]

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

This.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Though it is undeniably taking the joy of discovery away from said guessworthy newbie who actually guesses right if you just roll in and say "sit down in that chair right there and let me show you how it's done"; and it's also undeniably taking away the chance of failure from said newbie when the guesses are wrong.

I have no idea what you are even talking about or how this is in any way related to what I said and you quoted.

Sometimes, if a game is all experienced players who know way more than their characters do, the guesswork and learning experience can be simulated (not well, but it's a start) with a die roll, as in this low-level party meeting their first troll:

Or we can skip the die rolls that were never involved in the process when involving brand new players and just simulate our characters actions with role-playing. Changing your play by play to one that never even brings up "that sounds like a troll" and just goes straight into the action whether it is swinging a sword, casting a spell, starting a fire, or some other thing which happens to strike the player's fancy at that given moment in play with whatever setting and circumstances have been described.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Where when the rest of us use it we mean both.

Which is why I offered up my definition in the first place, so that people would understand what I meant (which didn't work because people chose not to read my posts fully or didn't understand them).

The "maybe, maybe not" knowledge issue can easily be solved with a die roll to see if the character has that information going in or not - we do this all the time.

Yes, it is easy to resolve the uncertain knowledge with a die roll - though often actions don't actually need any knowledge in order to be attempted, so those die rolls are really determining whether the action can be taken with the character being confident in the likely outcome or the action can be taken with the character being unsure of the likely outcome, rather than determining whether the action can be taken or not.

Perhaps, but I'd just as soon try other crazy things and have 'em work out wrong.

It is entirely up to the player to play their character as they see fit - whether they are playing the character as guessing because they are guessing as a player, or they are playing the character as guessing (whether right or wrong is irrelevant) when they know for sure as a player, and that's not metagaming.

And some common-to-players knowledge might in fact be impossible to have in the game world. If your game world has no such thing as Trolls and your party has just planeshifted elsewhere and found a few of 'em, the characters won't and can't know their vulnerabilities and resistances even though the players are all over that stuff. Then what do you do?

I am confused as to why you think there is uncertainty about what to do in that situation.

If a character is trying to say "that creature must be a troll, we should burn it to stop it's regeneration" when they have no possible frame of reference for what a troll is and how fire interacts with a troll's regeneration, that is cheating.
If a character is trying to light an unknown creature on fire, that is not cheating nor metagaming - full stop. The only way to paint that action as being metagaming is to insist that the player must think of what they know that their character doesn't (that is a troll, trolls are killed easily with fire, etc.) and then choose their character's action because of that knowledge (not using fire) rather than having the character act in a way that anyone not knowing what the monster is as a player could choose to act upon encountering unknown threat with fire readily available (use fire if you feel like it), which is metagaming according to every definition I've ever seen for the word.

 

[delericho]

And some common-to-players knowledge might in fact be impossible to have in the game world. If your game world has no such thing as Trolls and your party has just planeshifted elsewhere and found a few of 'em, the characters won't and can't know their vulnerabilities and resistances even though the players are all over that stuff. Then what do you do?

In principle, the players should play in good faith - their characters don't know, so they should act accordingly.

In practice, if the DM's carefully-crafted encounter relies on "trolls + fire" to work then he's probably got bigger problems then a bit of metagaming. It would be like crying "spoilers" if someone announced that Darth Vader is Luke's father - there comes a point when that's just silly.

On the other hand, if you're the one experienced player at a table full of newbies, then when the 'troll' encounter comes up then you should let the newbies learn the secret for themselves. If you're the one player who has previously read the adventure, shut up and let the rest of the group learn the secrets. (And don't be the guy who goes out and buys and reads the adventure so you know what's coming, don't be the guy who reads the DM's notes while he's in the bathroom, don't be the guy who googles the monsters as soon as they come up.) Because in that case, you're using your privileged knowledge to deny others the chance to find out for themselves.

And it's really not about "thoughtcrime", or anything like that. Frankly, the other guys at the table shouldn't have to police it at all - a player really shouldn't need other people to tell them not to be a jerk.

 

[S'mon]

Fact One: the dice clearly indicated that the characters were not aware of the ambush.

Fact Two: my calling for a Spot check and no other trigger was enough to cause a Pavlovian response in my players, whereby they'd immediately start loading up on defensive spells.

I only call for Perception checks right before the ambush - if they fail, it's too late to do anything about it.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, cheating is cheating... but me having my character do something that you'd be perfectly fine with someone else who doesn't know as much about D&D as I do having an identical character do in the same circumstances can't possibly be cheating.

You keep repeating that even though you know it to be a falsehood. I require both new and old players to do things in the same way. Both need to have in game reasons for what they do. It's only the older players with more knowledge who do things without in game reasons and run afoul of metagaming when they cheat like that.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, it seems that the distinction between using knowledge the character can't possibly have (which I call cheating and others call metagaming) and using knowledge that maybe the character has, maybe they don't, or maybe isn't even necessary in order to do what the character did (which I say isn't metagaming and others say is) has failed to be realized. When I say "metagaming" I am referring only to the later, not the former.

Hey. At least you've finally owned up to personally changing the definition of metagaming, rather than saying that it's the same like you did a few pages back.

Using an invented definition that runs contrary to the rest of us isn't helpful.

Now, as to knowledge that maybe the character has, maybe they don't, that is evident from their written background, game play, or skills. A player doesn't get to suddenly decide that their grandpappy is a survivor of the underdark and at some point explained all that goes on down there to the PC, just as the party is descending into the depths of the earth.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You keep repeating that even though you know it to be a falsehood.

Nonsense. I can't know it to be a falsehood because it is a fact.

Either a character in that situation with the knowledge that character has can do a particular action, or that character in that situation with that knowledge can't. It doesn't matter what the player knows or doesn't know.

I require both new and old players to do things in the same way. Both need to have in game reasons for what they do.

That is thought policing, and slowing the game done for no benefit at all - especially because you either ask each and every player to explain their character's reason for each and every action they ever take no matter how many times they have or haven't taken that action, or you are being inconsistent and only asking for an in-character explanation when you have decided to suspect the player having the "wrong" reason for doing something.

It's only the older players with more knowledge who do things without in game reasons and run afoul of metagaming when they cheat like that.

Nonsense. It's any player that is just doing things because they seem cool and is, not unexpectedly in my opinion, caught off guard by your "hey, wait a second... why is your character doing that?" to which the most likely answer is probably "What? Why does it matter why? He wants to, that's why - I thought the way this game works is that I say what I want my character to try and you tell me how it works out." because only more experienced players with more knowledge and also experience with a DM that polices their thoughts by demanding the (absolutely ridiculous, by the way) "in-character reason" why their character is doing something.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Hey. At least you've finally owned up to personally changing the definition of metagaming, rather than saying that it's the same like you did a few pages back.

You should stop trying to twist my statements around like that. I've not "finally owned up" to anything, because I have been open and up-front about my usage of the word meta-gaming from the get go, because it is necessary for me to point out the difference between what other people call meta-gaming that I call cheating or playing in bad faith.

And those few pages back when I said what you have paraphrased as "it's the same" what I actually said was that your definition of metagaming (using knowledge the character doesn't have to determine the character's actions) is the definition of metagaming that I am using when I make the claim that in order to supposedly avoid metagaming you are actually forcing metagaming to happen, just with a different result (specifically that you are using a player's knowledge that a character doesn't have to say what that character cannot do - evident in that you consider not the action itself, but the reason the player picked that action, when determining what is or isn't cheating).

Using an invented definition that runs contrary to the rest of us isn't helpful.

There's no helping that since if I weren't using a more precise definition like I do people would have even less of a chance to understand what I mean when I say there is no such thing as metagaming; there is just playing your character doing what a character could do in whatever situations come along, and cheating by doing things that can't possibly make sense to do in a situation.

Now, as to knowledge that maybe the character has, maybe they don't, that is evident from their written background, game play, or skills. A player doesn't get to suddenly decide that their grandpappy is a survivor of the underdark and at some point explained all that goes on down there to the PC, just as the party is descending into the depths of the earth.

Yeah, I get it... no deepening player investment in the campaign by enriching their character's background with added relevant detail while the campaign is in progress, you either write the entire life story of your character from birth to campaign start before the campaign or you don't get to have your character have lived a full and interesting life before becoming an adventurer.