Definition of Metagaming

[pawsplay]

I don't follow that at all.

And, Knowledge checks are generally for things you've never seen before, in game. The first time you come across a destrachan, for instance, to know that it has sonic attacks so you know to cast silence defensivly against it. If no one in the party has ever seen a destrachan, and fails the Knowledge check to know what it is, then one Player tell another Player to have his cleric cast silence, I don't see how that could be anything but a bad thing.

How is this different than having read or played through a module before and planning according to how you, as a player, know it is laid out instead of as your character would know?

But it has not been established you've never seen a destrachan. That is, until you roll the dice, I guess.

This could be a bad thing for reasons I've already covered. For instance, a dragon slayer with no related knowledge skill for dragons.

It's completely different from the module example, because it's perfectly reasonable for your character to have met a certain kind of creature, but not to know the layout of a tomb and have perfect foreknowledge of what it contains. That would essentially be cheating.

Bashing the lich with a magic morningstar is not cheating. All liches everywhere have the same weaknesses, and if your character knows how to fight liches, so be it. Now, if you, the player, aren't familiar with liches or don't remember, a Knowledge check will help. And only a knowledge check would supply specific in-game knowledge, like having heard of a particular lich with different defenses and abilities.

It's a choice whether your character knows what, say, a hydra is. That shouldn't hinge on a die roll. Similarly, the GM is free to inform you what any kind of creature is that he says you should recognize. For instance, the war troll is probably fairly obscure, but if your kingdom is being sacked by them, everyone knows what they look like, what they do, and what will and won't stop them.

 

[wayne62682]

How is this different than having read or played through a module before and planning according to how you, as a player, know it is laid out instead of as your character would know?

To be honest, I don't see either as a "bad" thing, although the module example doesn't sit well with me; I don't see the problem with beating down a Troll with fire the moment you see it because there's still luck involved and you're evening up the playing field; if you didn't do that the Troll would have an advantage because it can heal but you cannot.

However, mysteriously knowing where every trap/secret door/etc. in the dungeon is a little extreme, even for me, and I play D&D only to tell a story.

--
Once more on the Knowledge thing.. again, where is the line drawn? Yes, there's a skill for things you haven't encountered before, but who says I haven't seen it before? Ex: I have a character who grew up in a city ruled for most of his life by a necromantic regime; would I not have at least rudimentary knowledge of lesser undead (e.g. skeletons, zombies, maybe a wight) without needing a roll, since I was brought up with this? How about an Elf; would they know immediatly how Orcs are (having hated them for millenia) and drow, being mortal enemies?

Again.. if I suddenly decide (assuming I didn't flesh out my background much) that my character was born in a town near a swamp, and that I fought lizardmen as a youth, isn't that roleplaying and fleshing out my character? How is it cheating to say this in-game and then rattle off Lizardman hunting tactics to the rest of the group? In my group that's metagaming, but I fail to see why. Am I doing it just to gain an advantage? Maybe, but I have an in-character justification. Same as saying, when faced with the troll "I've heard of these things... a wizard in my town slew one when I was a young boy. If I recall, they're vulnerable to fire; I remember him blasting it with a ray of flame". How exactly is that metagaming? I (i.e. the player) am not telling the Wizard PC to use Fireball because "Troll's dont regenerate fire damage", I'm telling him as my character that I saw a Wizard blast one with fire spells and it seemed to work.

 

[buzz]

See, disucssion of metagaming only gets muddy when you start talking about "good" and "bad".

It gets even muddier when you talk about Knowledge checks for monster abilities, as that can spiral (as it has in the blogosphere) into specific discussion of system mastery in D&D and assumed competence of PCs.

...but it all still comes back to group preference and goals and how much/what kind of metgaming they tolerate.

P.S., I really don't like how Knowledge skills work w/r/t monsters.

 

[ThirdWizard]

See, disucssion of metagaming only gets muddy when you start talking about "good" and "bad".

That's what makes it interesting.

I agree, though, that picking particular examples probably won't work very well, since different people are going to have problems with different aspects of the game and what they see as good and bad metagaming. So, some people might not mind Players referenceing monster books and others might see it as horrible, and others might think note taking when the PCs can't take notes is bad and others would see it as encouraged.

But, I don't know any other way to handle it.

 

[buzz]

But, I don't know any other way to handle it.

IMO, you just don't add in a value judgement. Since it's been asserted that metagaming is a part of gaming, that leaves out issue of "whether you're gaming or not," which is a good thing. Then, you simply don't assert that a given instance is bad or good, but just tolerable to you or not.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So if my PC has a jar of fiery oil in his pack and we encounter a troll, should the DM ban me from using it unless I make a skill check?

No chance I may have used it regardless since burning kills pretty much anything?

How far does this go?

 

[ThirdWizard]

IMO, you just don't add in a value judgement. Since it's been asserted that metagaming is a part of gaming, that leaves out issue of "whether you're gaming or not," which is a good thing. Then, you simply don't assert that a given instance is bad or good, but just tolerable to you or not.

Debates often add value judgements to things. The "fair or not" thread's entire purpose, for example, is one big value judgement. The character death thread is one big value judgement. The should the game be DM vs. PC thread is a big value judgement.

Making value judgements about what we individually think is good and bad for a game isn't something that should be avoided. Without it, how do we observe how other people approach the game?

So if my PC has a jar of fiery oil in his pack and we encounter a troll, should the DM ban me from using it unless I make a skill check?

No chance I may have used it regardless since burning kills pretty much anything?

How far does this go?

In our games, it depends on how far the Player of the PC is comfortable in going. We don't actually have any hard and fast rules against individual scenarios in this sense, so its up to the Player to say "My character wouldn't do that" or "My character would do that anyway."

 

[wayne62682]

So if my PC has a jar of fiery oil in his pack and we encounter a troll, should the DM ban me from using it unless I make a skill check?

No chance I may have used it regardless since burning kills pretty much anything?

How far does this go?

Exactly the point, Flexor. Is it metagaming to say "Well, burning something usually kills it dead" and burn the Troll? Typically when I ask this I'm told it's metagaming if you do it the minute you ID it as a Troll. Which brings this up: How long do you need to wait until it's "safe" to do it? One round? If you strike the troll and do some damage and then the wound begins to heal, is it safe to bring out the fire? How about if your character is a pyromaniac who burns EVERYTHING, then is it okay to flame the Troll (ha!) the minute you see it, because it doesn't matter if your PC knows it's weak against fire or not, he just loves fire?

Etc. etc. this could go on and on forever... the point is that there has to be a line between metagaming and using good tactics.

 

[Reynard]

So if my PC has a jar of fiery oil in his pack and we encounter a troll, should the DM ban me from using it unless I make a skill check?

No chance I may have used it regardless since burning kills pretty much anything?

How far does this go?

Depends. Assuming that your character shouldn't know about Trolls and fire, how much damage does the fire do compared to your usual way of killing things? Do you have a history of burning things just for kicks, regardless of its combat efficiency?

In a situation like this one, a little bit of player creativity on behalf of the PC is in order. "I bullrush the troll. Oh, was there a torch on that wall?" That sort of thing. As a DM, I like it when players come up with creative ways to plausibly apply OoC knowledge -- especially since I largely play with experienced gamers, it is easier and more fun than constantly yelling about metagaming.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

IMHO, 'meta-gaming' is required at the table. My group does not meet often enough to remember major plot points, let alone vieled hints at some tatoo I mentoined 4 sessoins ago..more so when 4 sessions ago was 6 months real time.

It boils down to these areas for me:

OOC help remembering IC knowledge: No problem. This includes the tatoo problems, tactical choices, and current plot lines.

OOC help replacing IC knowledge: Also no problem. I describe the creatures they face either by name if the PC's would have sufficient knowledge to know thier weaknesses...and as such use any OOC knowledge gleaned from reading MMs.. or with an IC description. This with the caveat that I rarely read the MM, so my descriptions do not nessesarily match the book. This means my players end up on thier toes facing unknown critters and rely on Knowledge checks or experience to learn its abilities.

OOC concepts guiding IC motivations: eg, the "DM won't kill us, so we can go this way even tho it looks hazardous" Big problem, altho self resolving.... doesn't happen again after the players realize that *this* DM does not offer plot immunity to any PC

So, what is metagaming? I like Thanee's defination of "Metagaming is using knowledge or basing decisions on something you know as a player, but your character cannot know."
Is it bad? Depends on the player, the group, and the game... but usually its not a deal-breaker for me when it comes to enjoying a game.