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

[overgeeked]

For some it's monster stat blocks. For others it's reading the module. Others still it's looking at the DM's notes or peaking at the map.

Some don't mind certain levels of metagaming, others hate every kind.

I don't care if players read the monster books. I homebrew most of my monsters anyway. I keep a lot of the standard monsters, but ones with special weaknesses tend to get left unused or homebrewed. Mostly to keep things interesting. It really bugs me when players read the module. To me, that's straight up cheating. But it's also something you can't really account for, so it's easier to homebrew adventures. But the one that really...really gets me is the "Sudden Rush." That mysterious and sudden need of PCs to rush to the place where something is happening despite not knowing that something is happening there. One PC is talking to an NPC...and miraculously the entire party suddenly and mysteriously needs to be there...for no particular reason. Or some PC spots something interesting...and miraculously the entire party suddenly and mysteriously needs to be there...for no particular reason.

So DMs out there: where's your line on metagaming?

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm sure that I have a line with metagaming in d&d, but in d&d the characters should know some basic stuff about the world just like I know a grizzly bear is a more dangerous critter than a brown bear & lot of rodents can carry nasty diseases or that google probably knows more about me than I do. If the metagaming can be justified based on that kind of knowldge then I don't really care because it doesn't affect much.

In more shared narrative type games where there are often a lot of reasons that the players will know things their characters have no reason to know (ie because the "city" or whatever was created collaboratively) it drives me bonkers when players metagame their characters off that knowledge

 

[Yaarel]

I dont really have a line, metagaming has more to do with a playstyle, and a campaign depends on what the players are into.

I have my own preferences, of course. But in a game, one needs to work with the people that one is with.

Heh, for me, simply using a grid rather than mind-style is already metagamey.

Obviously, experienced players will be familiar with the ins and outs of D&D, and might even own the adventure a DM is doing or the player might even have been a DM for it..

The only way to surprise players is to homebrew.

We tend to rotate DMs. So our shared world always stays fresh.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't really have one.

I agree with you about straight up cheating, but that's mostly annoying for the deception, not the actual impact on the game.

I was in a game the other night, as a player, on roll20, and when a monster used it's innate mind control ability on a PC the DM displayed that entry in the group chat so we could all see how it worked, then the player rolled his saving throw and failed. Then a discussion ensued about how the rest of us wouldn't know that yet, so we shouldn't cause damage to our companion to allow him to re-roll the saving throw.

I stayed silent, but was thinking, "THEN WHY ANNOUNCE TO THE WHOLE TABLE WHAT IS HAPPENING?!?!?!" On roll20 the DM could have PM'd the player asking for a saving throw, then PM'd "You're charmed. Act it." The rest of us would have genuinely been in the dark about what was happening and chaos would have ensued. It would have been awesome.

Instead we all pretended to not know he was charmed, and then started playing the game of "so....when is it ok for us to figure it out?"

Then the monster used it on my character, and I got to link the entry for "Mindless Rage" in group chat. (Berserker Barbarian, immune to fear and charm while raging.). Psych.

 

[iserith]

I have no line. Players are free to make decisions for their characters however they want. It's none of my business.

What I caution players about, however, is that I change things from time to time and that it's smart play to verify their assumptions in-game before acting on them. If they just assume that fire will harm a troll only to find out it just makes this troll stronger, that's on them. They were warned.

 

[Charlaquin]

No line. I am strongly opposed to policing players’ decision-making processes, so if they make decisions based on player knowledge, that’s their business. I do caution players that I use a lot of custom monsters and when running modules, I modify them, so acting on information you think you know but haven’t taken steps to confirm in-game is risky. Again though, if they want to take that risk, that’s their business.

 

[iserith]

I don't really have one.

I agree with you about straight up cheating, but that's mostly annoying for the deception, not the actual impact on the game.

I was in a game the other night, as a player, on roll20, and when a monster used it's innate mind control ability on a PC the DM displayed that entry in the group chat so we could all see how it worked, then the player rolled his saving throw and failed. Then a discussion ensued about how the rest of us wouldn't know that yet, so we shouldn't cause damage to our companion to allow him to re-roll the saving throw.

I stayed silent, but was thinking, "THEN WHY ANNOUNCE TO THE WHOLE TABLE WHAT IS HAPPENING?!?!?!" On roll20 the DM could have PM'd the player asking for a saving throw, then PM'd "You're charmed. Act it." The rest of us would have genuinely been in the dark about what was happening and chaos would have ensued. It would have been awesome.

Instead we all pretended to not know he was charmed, and then started playing the game of "so....when is it ok for us to figure it out?"

Then the monster used it on my character, and I got to link the entry for "Mindless Rage" in group chat. (Berserker Barbarian, immune to fear and charm while raging.). Psych.

I always remove that damage-causes-a-save mechanics from monsters (or at least damage from anything other than the monster itself). It's funny to watch an experienced player have their character punch a friend in the face only to find it doesn't break the charm. Hey, I warned them I change things!

 

[Bill Zebub]

I always remove that damage-causes-a-save mechanics from monsters (or at least damage from anything other than the monster itself). It's funny to watch an experienced player have their character punch a friend in the face only to find it doesn't break the charm. Hey, I warned them I change things!

Love it.

 

[overgeeked]

I always remove that damage-causes-a-save mechanics from monsters (or at least damage from anything other than the monster itself). It's funny to watch an experienced player have their character punch a friend in the face only to find it doesn't break the charm. Hey, I warned them I change things!

Sure. And that’s great. But at what point is having to change how monster after monster, spell after spell, effect after effect, and item after item to prevent metagaming become too much? It’s like saying you know they’re going to cheat so you have to change how everything works so that when they inevitably cheat...because of course they will...your changes catch them out. That’s punishing them for metagaming. Why not just ask them not to? Wouldn’t that be easier? Is it such a common and accepted thing that’s it’s simply easier to change the whole game around them?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure. And that’s great. But at what point is having to change how monster after monster, spell after spell, effect after effect, and item after item to prevent metagaming become too much? It’s like saying you know they’re going to cheat so you have to change how everything works so that when they inevitably cheat...because of course they will...your changes catch them out. That’s punishing them for metagaming. Why not just ask them not to? Wouldn’t that be easier? Is it such a common and accepted thing that’s it’s simply easier to change the whole game around them?

Why do you have to change monsters? Serious question. My answer, back when I cared, was that I was relying on the monster's gimmicks to be the important part of the challenge. I stopped doing that, or, rather, stopped relying on people pretending they don't know the gimmick to be the crux of the encounter. I built challenges now that don't rely on people not knowing the gimmick. For me, this was a very simple and easy switch, and solved all of my GM-side issues. Now, I make new stuff up because I want to or because it fits a theme and I can't find an easy fit that already exists. I don't care if the players know about it.

Honestly, I could hand players my game notes, and they'd still most likely screw it up by the numbers.