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

[Ovinomancer]

OP asked where my line was for metagaming, so I laid it out.

It is definitely like you say, a person problem, not a game problem. But it falls under the category of metagaming to me.

Metagaming is an in game issue -- it's where you're playing the game with the knowledge it's a game. I actually discourage doing this, because my games are not predicated on it always being a fair challenge. The idea of mixing up knowledge between the player and the character is an offshoot of this concept, even if it's the most often talked about in relation to D&D. A player coming to the table with a different goal for play isn't a metagame issue -- it's a table issue.

I'm not trying to bust chops here, or be difficult, but rather point out that it does matter that we talk about things where they belong rather than just lumping them under a "badplay" term like how metagaming is often used.

 

[Greg K]

We all know trolls are vulnerable to fire and they don't even exist. I would think in a world where they actually exist this would be known.

Are we talking about D&D trolls (I think a 2e supplement or two may have had trolls not vulnerable to fire)? mythological trolls (if so, what culture)? internet trolls? and, if talking about non-D&D or non-internet trolls, are they just as vulnerable as any other creature made of flesh?
And, how did we (players) get this knowledge? What has been the influence of the printing press, mass media, and/or public education? Some or all of these may or may not exist in the game world or portions of it.

Have you ever been attacked by a bear? But I bet you know what common wisdom says to do if attacked by a bear.

But what if you were indigenous to pre-European contact sub-Saharan Africa (where bears have not existed for millions of years) or Australia (where bears have not existed) and were, suddenly, transported in front of a bear? This would not be common wisdom.

(And that's where it gets interesting, right....are you really supposed to play dead? In all circumstances? Likewise, maybe the thing about trolls and fire isn't completely true...)

Or even true at all. Which is why i say common knowledge is subject to individual campaigns and, possibly, even specific cultures within the campaign.

 

[SkidAce]

Metagaming is an in game issue -- it's where you're playing the game with the knowledge it's a game. I actually discourage doing this, because my games are not predicated on it always being a fair challenge. The idea of mixing up knowledge between the player and the character is an offshoot of this concept, even if it's the most often talked about in relation to D&D. A player coming to the table with a different goal for play isn't a metagame issue -- it's a table issue.

I'm not trying to bust chops here, or be difficult, but rather point out that it does matter that we talk about things where they belong rather than just lumping them under a "badplay" term like how metagaming is often used.

I am using your definition ..he was playing the game by cheating to find everything, not in character.

But overall I am agreeing with you, terminology aside. I feel the metagaming tends to be a "badplay" term because people are considering it to be "out of character" in a roleplaying game, and they fail to consider the nuances.

 

[Greg K]

I can't think of a single instance where I would do this. I would say that players are free to have their characters think whatever the player establishes. It just might be that they are wrong.

I have no problem telling a player that their character would not know something based upon the character's culture and background and where they are in the world just as I would hand out free information to characters based upon the same.

 

[Greg K]

Calling them trolls may be part of the point; its a term that both predates D&D and has associations, and that may be what you're looking for.

Exactly, I have no issues making trolls in my world a variant of ogre or hill giant rather than the standard D&D troll that Gygax based off trolls in a story by Poul Anderson(iirc).
edit: I am, probably, going to make kobolds a type of sprite or spirit that has nothing to do with D&D kobolds.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

know <> think

 

[iserith]

I have no problem telling a player that their character would not know something based upon the character's culture and background and where they are in the world just as I would hand out free information to characters based upon the same.

There's a distinction to be drawn here in my view. Would I negate a player's declared action based on certain information "because you wouldn't know that?" I would not. Ever.

Would I say that an attempt by the character to recall lore about something as established by the player succeeds or fails outright? Yes, just like any other action I would have to adjudicate as DM. But that still doesn't stop the player from having the character act as they see fit.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Exactly, I have no issues making trolls in my world a variant of ogre or hill giant rather than the standard D&D troll that Gygax based off trolls in a story by Poul Anderson(iirc).
edit: I am, probably, going to make kobolds a type of sprite or spirit that has nothing to do with D&D kobolds.

Sure, and that's legit. But if you're looking at a monster write-up that doing exactly what it looks like the (relatively traditional) take on a mythical creature should be, and want to use the mythical creature...

 

[Thomas Shey]

In early D&D Rangers didn't get spell access until 8th/9th level, by which point you're far past "everyman" status anyway.

A 1st-level mage in 1e is a commoner (same h.p., same fighting skills) who's gone to school and learned some spellcraft. a 1st-level fighter is a commoner who's learned to wave a weapon around and defend itself just a bit.

Contrast this with a 1st-level anything in 4e or 5e who is already miles above a commoner in every metric.

Even in OD&D you aren't staying first level long, and again, if your idea of an "everyman" includes even a first level D&D wizard (where his hit points and personal combat capability are the least of the issue) then we have very different ideas of the term.

 

[Greg K]

There's a distinction to be drawn here in my view. Would I negate a player's declared action based on certain information "because you wouldn't know that?" I would not. Ever.

Would I say that an attempt by the character to recall lore about something as established by the player succeeds or fails outright? Yes, just like any other action I would have to adjudicate as DM. But that still doesn't stop the player from having the character act as they see fit.

I would give rolls too- possibly with a high DC and disadvantage (or penalty depending upon edition). However, if there was no possible way for the character to know something, I am going to say, no.