D&D General DMs: where's your metagaming line?

[Bill Zebub]

Well, it could be that it fit a theme you were setting up too well for you to want to skip it.

Then just change the description and don't call them trolls? It's just simply not hard to change things.

Eh. At that point I'd find it reaching, especially if they're away from where they originate. There's not getting anal-retentive about it, and there's tolerating a player trying to come up with an excuse. I have little of the latter. If someone is some sort of a sage or the like it might be a different story, but I'd at least expect a roll.

I sort of get what you're saying, but it all just seems like unnecessarily complicated overhead. Would this character know such a thing? What's the likelihood? Well, what's their background and where are they from?

Which gets us back to my first point, above: ultimately, if secrecy of the fact in question is so vital to the balance of the game that the DM absolutely must have it, make sure you use an actual secret.

 

[R_J_K75]

Personally I’d go with what @iserith said in that situation: the character can think whatever the player wants them to think, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. The player who blurts out “trolls are weak to fire” is essentially saying their character thinks trolls are weak to fire. And if the party wants to act on that, they are free to do so, though if they don’t take steps to confirm or deny what the character thinks, they risk being wrong.

Think of it this way, things think incorrect things about real-life animals all the time. If someone saw a spider and blurted out “watch out! You’ll die if that bites you!” that wouldn’t be unusual at all, even in the unlikely event that it happens to be true.

There's lots of ways to play the game. I prefer to draw the line on metagaming in my game at a certain point but its rare that I do. I'm all for the DM saying yes, but sometimes every once in a while you just have to say no.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As a DM I think that I wouldn't pre-determine a combination for a lock, or ever give it one. Id just go through the process of the player either gaining the "combination", them picking it or forcing the safe open. Nothing to metagame there as there's no combo to begin with.

That's what I'd do, too.

But now we've strayed from the purpose of that example, which was to specify what we mean by information that it would be impossible for the player to have, that would be impossible (or nearly so) to explain narratively how the character has it.

 

[Lanefan]

This assumes PCs are "common folk" which I don't think works very well for people in D&D classes, honestly. D&D is kind of a bad choice on all kinds of grounds for an everyman campaign.

For the most part this is exactly my assumption; and you're right in saying modern D&D (particularly 4e) doesn't do this well. It's do-able enough with 0e-1e though, and early-era 2e.

 

[R_J_K75]

That's what I'd do, too.

But now we've strayed from the purpose of that example, which was to specify what we mean by information that it would be impossible for the player to have, that would be impossible (or nearly so) to explain narratively how the character has it.

Is it impossible for a PC to have a piece of information theoretically no, but its also improbable and illogical that they would in some situations. When I DM and make a decision whether a player knows something, its done on a case by case basis but I do what I think is logical and appropriate for the situation.

 

[overgeeked]

That's no issue for me. They can blurt out whatever they want. If they then act on it (or other members of the party do), they better hope they are right.

Right. Again...you've put in rules changes to stop the players from benefiting from metagaming. So you've effectively removed the benefit of metagaming.

 

[Lanefan]

Then just change the description and don't call them trolls? It's just simply not hard to change things.

I disagree that it's not hard. Sure, to change something like the name is easy, but remembering you've done it is a pain*. Changing the stat blocks etc. is way more work; and IMO is work a DM shouldn't have to do just to prevent metagaming.

* - I say this from experience. For my current campaign I originally intended to change the names of just about every common monster, just to change things up a bit and keep the players guessing for at least a session or three. Problem was, except for maybe 4 creatures I promptly forgot all the new names once play started. So, what were previously Orcs Kobolds Goblins and Ogres kept their new names and the rest just stayed as what they were...

Which gets us back to my first point, above: ultimately, if secrecy of the fact in question is so vital to the balance of the game that the DM absolutely must have it, make sure you use an actual secret.

Agreed.

But if one or more players take out-of-game steps to learn that secret, what then? (e.g. the lock-combination example above)

 

[iserith]

Is it impossible for a PC to have a piece of information theoretically no, but its also improbable and illogical that they would in some situations. When I DM and make a decision whether a player knows something, its done on a case by case basis but I do what I think is logical and appropriate for the situation.

In my view, the only times I as DM can say what a character knows is when I'm describing the environment and the necessary context to for the player to understand what's going on in the setting (e.g. "Trolls have attacked the city of Lionguard for centuries...") or when the player specifically tries to recall lore and I have to narrate the result. In the latter situation, I ask the player to make the case why they think the character had access to this knowledge such that they could remember it. I then decide, based on that and other context clues, whether the PC recalls the lore, fails to recall the lore, or whether there's a roll to decide. They're still free to act however they wish though even if I say they can't recall the lore.

 

[iserith]

Right. Again...you've put in rules changes to stop the players from benefiting from metagaming. So you've effectively removed the benefit of metagaming.

The rules changes are not made for that purpose. That it may introduce a variable that makes "metagaming" an unreliable tactic is a byproduct. Players don't necessarily only engage in reliable tactics though, so it's not like this stops "metagaming" altogether. However, if someone is the sort of person that dislikes "metagaming," one could do far worse than just making the odd change and telling players you do that sometimes. That's probably a much better solution than trying to police the thoughts of players.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Because it's mechanics. I'm totally fine with them making an investigation check and being told "the creature's skin looks unarmored and soft, and it doesn't seem that quick on their feet." But I suppose I should've stuck with the usual example of what people ask for with monster lore checks - vulnerabilities and resistances, to be clearer.

I wouldn't be okay with them making a check to know that a relatively obscure monster like an Obyrith is immune to poison. Unless the PC has something like the sage background or the ranger's favored enemy ability that would apply to the situation. There are abilities that specifically apply to this sort of thing, and lacking those, I want to maintain some degree of surprise and mystery about the world - not everything can be learned with a dice check.

Just snipping out this to make a point - I'm on board with the other comments you made.

So why can't that Cleric of Trickery from the desert deduce an AC? They can roughly gauge the monster's agility and can also observe if the monster has armor (natural or otherwise), no? Or, if they don't explicitly blurt out that they know the AC is 11 but somehow want to deduce it in the moment, the DM can call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence of failure. Perhaps something like: "Make a DC 15 Intelligence check - on a success, you'll know the AC within 1. On a failure, you'll know the AC within 2 but will be so lost in thought that the monsters will have advantage on their next attack on you. Still want to try to figure it out?"

Specific example aside, my point being is that one can explain away most anything in the game world. Hence, IMO, it is not worth worrying about what the player says their character knows (which is really "what their character thinks they know"). The player may or may not be right without confirming their assumption in-game via their PC.