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

[billd91]

I don't consider that to be metagaming so much as it's just annoying "That Guy" behavior. I had one player for a good number of years who was in that habit, always trying to mysteriously "teleport" his PC into every social interaction scene, even if his character was explicitly on the other side of a large city. He just always had to be involved, and never really managed to take the hint that he was basically spotlight-hogging and annoying the other players.

Most of the time I encounter players like this is because of 1) immaturity or 2) ADHD - and sometimes together like a couple of players in a game I'm running now. Most people I've played with this outgrow the behavior in some way or form - either because they get older and more mature, or because they learn to stop doing it and relax about being in the thick of everything.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, you can have the situation where they're simply so rare that "troll" is an unknown word locally, but that's not going to be the case in too many D&D games.

Two things:
1. Again, that's the DM's fault. If I, as DM, take a canonical D&D monster and decide that in my world this monster is incredibly rare, and I don't expect my players to know about it...then why the $%@& did I use a canonical monster and not change it? Why would I do that to my players?
2. Even if they are incredibly rare, it's still possible for any given individual to know about it. You would think D&D players of all people who know that some people carry around esoteric facts. (Exhibit A: the constant debates about historically accurate sword types.)

 

[R_J_K75]

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.

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

(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...)

This has always been vague as the rules rarely state what should be considered common knowledge and what shouldn't. Its probably left vague on purpose so every table can make their own decision. As far as trolls, If I were DMing a lower level campaign based on the idea that in a medievalish setting that most common folk wouldn't know much if anything about or if they even exist or saw one. The knowledge of them is out there depending on who you ask or if you were from an area where trolls are frequently encountered, but I wouldn't consider it common knowledge. Depends on the characters backstory too.

 

[Lanefan]

My line on metagaming: flat-out don't do it at my table.

As far as possible, player knowledge should equal character knowledge; and if you're a player using knowledge that your PC wouldn't have* you won't be a player here for very long.

* - an example: one PC goes out to scout while the rest stay put; the scout finds something and before the scout can report back to the party in-game someone's PC is already acting on that info because the player heard what happened with the scout. That just doesn't fly, and is why such away missions are usually handled by note or in another room.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Now, stuff that they don't know, they don't know. I'm not a big fan of "monster knowledge" checks. It's one thing to assume that in this world everyone knows that beholders have an eye ray that nullifies magic, or that a dragon I describe as gargantuan is above their pay grade, but another thing that a cleric of trickery from the desert would be able to know that a Sea Spawn has an AC of 11 with an intelligence 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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Two things:
1. Again, that's the DM's fault. If I, as DM, take a canonical D&D monster and decide that in my world this monster is incredibly rare, and I don't expect my players to know about it...then why the $%@& did I use a canonical monster and not change it? Why would I do that to my players?

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

2. Even if they are incredibly rare, it's still possible for any given individual to know about it. You would think D&D players of all people who know that some people carry around esoteric facts. (Exhibit A: the constant debates about historically accurate sword types.)

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

Perhaps I didnt write quite what I was thinking, but for the sake of argument lets say a Player encounters a troll whose character has never encountered one before has no knowledge of the creature but the player immediately blurts out Troll theyre vulnerable to fire attack it with fire. For me thats more metagaming than I'll allow. Though @Charlaquin comment above are very valid and I think in most circumstances is how Id rule.

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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As far as trolls, If I were DMing a lower level campaign based on the idea that in a medievalish setting that most common folk wouldn't know much if anything about or if they even exist or saw one. The knowledge of them is out there depending on who you ask or if you were from an area where trolls are frequently encountered, but I wouldn't consider it common knowledge. Depends on the characters backstory too.

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.

 

[R_J_K75]

I think you're missing my point here. If the player says it's 38-17-45 and they are right, how did they know that? So if the problem is that this spoils the DMs plans, the real problem is that the DM shouldn't have relied on a known "secret".

Maybe I am missing the point but if a player actually randomly guessed a lock combination, A) Im giving him money to play the lottery, B) declare the player has won D&D forever.

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.

 

[R_J_K75]

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.

As I said said it depends on a characters background and backstory. In some cases PCs with a class are common folk.