D&D 5E Do you let PC's just *break* objects?

[Charlaquin]

But see, the troll is a test in my view and it can lead to breaking "immersion." You could choose instead to not use trolls or you could alter the way trolls work (e.g. fire doesn't stop their regeneration on the trolls of the Fire Caves of Argh, who are tainted with devil's blood), and let it be known you do change up lore and stats from time to time, so that "metagaming" is disincentized. The players' knowledge in this situation is, in effect, aligned with the character's knowledge - neither of them can be certain, without taking action, that this troll in front of them is like the troll they fought the last time (or in another adventure or campaign). Immersion is maintained.

Not to spin a tangent off of a tangent (but I’m going to that) - of late, I’m actually less keen on changing monsters to subvert expectations like this. I already don’t care about the metagaming that can happen when using stock monsters, and on the contrary I think there’s value in accumulated player knowledge that I may have been throwing away by altering monsters like this. I dunno, just something I’ve been mulling around lately.

 

[iserith]

Not to spin a tangent off of a tangent (but I’m going to that) - of late, I’m actually less keen on changing monsters to subvert expectations like this. I already don’t care about the metagaming that can happen when using stock monsters, and on the contrary I think there’s value in accumulated player knowledge that I may have been throwing away by altering monsters like this. I dunno, just something I’ve been mulling around lately.

Yeah, I actually change very few, relatively speaking, to suit whatever specific challenge I want to present. It's never about subverting "metagaming," which I don't care about. That's just a byproduct of the approach that some folks who do care about "metagaming" might consider adopting. All the players need to know is that the DM does change monsters from time to time. That creates enough risk to make "metagaming" an unreliable strategy. The rest takes care of itself.

 

[greg kaye]

But see, the troll is a test in my view and it can lead to breaking "immersion." You could choose instead to not use trolls or you could alter the way trolls work (e.g. fire doesn't stop their regeneration on the trolls of the Fire Caves of Argh, who are tainted with devil's blood), and let it be known you do change up lore and stats from time to time, so that "metagaming" is disincentized. The players' knowledge in this situation is, in effect, aligned with the character's knowledge - neither of them can be certain, without taking action, that this troll in front of them is like the troll they fought the last time (or in another adventure or campaign). Immersion is maintained.

Compare that with what many groups do which is break away from immersive descriptions of the environment and the players describing their actions into immersion-breaking player sidebar questions with the DM about what the character does or doesn't know, so that the player can work out which action declarations are likely to be valid in the eyes of the DM. Then once that is resolved, the player has to "metagame" to make the appropriate choices that align with the DM's understanding on the character's knowledge (e.g. you can't use fire or acid here because you don't know that works) rather than freely act however they think the character might in the face of the threat. So perhaps you can see what I mean when I say that the people who care about this matter the most also seem to do the most to get in their own way, as well as rebuke suggestions that may help them achieve their goals more easily. And again, that's fine - do what you want. I'm making an observation about it, not telling anyone how they must play.

The troll issue was just an example as per Clint_L's response:
"... I don't set out to "test" my players, and find it insulting that your response to folks disagreeing with your advice is to question our motives, like you of course have the answers and therefore anyone who rejects your Truth must be up to no good. The fact that you "can't think of any other reason why" folks aren't doing what you tell them doesn't prove their perniciousness, it speaks to your failure to look at the issue from another point of view, or to consider that other perspectives might also be valid.
For instance, having the party encounter a troll is not a test of metagaming. What an absurd idea, that I am so concerned with metagaming that I spend my time creating devious story hooks intended to trick my players. It is my assumption that we don't metagame, and so I can use staple D&D creatures without the players taking advantage of knowledge from outside of their character's experience. I make it clear at session 0 that I don't like metagaming, and my regular players and I are pretty copacetic on this point - we like immersing ourselves in the fiction of the story. ..."

So, in your universally presented view in which you assert that "the troll is a test", who, in every case, is testing? If someone like myself or Clint L can assert, "I don't set out to "test" my players," how, in a world where famous monsters like trolls actually exist, is it a test?

How does your judgment fit with Clint L's post-ending personal assertions that:
"... There are different ways to play the game, and I don't care if another group enjoys metagaming right up to having every player pull out their monster manual or adventure book whenever they feel like it. It's a gradient, and whatever works at your table, bless. But those of us who want it minimized in our games aren't having badwrongfun, and we aren't trying to test or trap our players"? Do you think we are lying?

 

[Oofta]

Short version: I discuss potential issues (i.e. metagaming) with my players and ask them not to engage in those behaviors. I expect mutual trust between players and DM.

Long version: I think everyone plays for different reasons and there's always going to be a social contract at the table. That social contract may include unspoken things like being civil and respectful of other player or explicitly discussed. Some of the things I discuss are that I don't want to run a game for evil PCs because it's just not my gig, but also that you don't play a disruptive anti-social loner because it's a team game.

But another one? I simply ask people not to metagame when possible. I'm pretty generous with what players know, trolls are common enough people know they need fire, people have heard the legends of lycanthropes.

So I have no reason to expect people to declare actions using a required level of specificity to "prevent" any issues or behavior I don't want. I don't worry about creating opportunities for people to do something I don't want to have happen. If there's an issue or behavior that makes the game less enjoyable I'll simply have a discussion about it and ask people not to do that.

As far as people not doing something that they would normally do if using metagame knowledge, I don't challenge the player sitting at the table. I challenge the PC. If Joe is a fellow DM who has an encyclopedic knowledge of monsters, I don't want their PC to have a leg up. Of course you're always going to get an issue where Sue is going to be better at solving problems than Bob because she's more creative, but I don't want it to be because Sue's been playing D&D longer than Bob. I especially don't want it to be because Sue knows my "tells" and has more experience with me as a DM.

So when it comes to smashing a vase, part of that social construct is that I limit the result of PC actions to what I think is reasonable. No, you can't punch a hole in a battleship that is constructed of oak planks several inches thick unless you're a monk with some special ability I've never heard of. If you smash a vase and for some reason it makes a difference whether you use your fist or a weapon, I'll just ask for clarification and I'm not going to worry about the player changing behavior because I asked for that clarification because I asked them not to do that.

I don't have to control player's behavior or prevent issues with techniques because we have mutual trust and honesty at the table.

 

[iserith]

The troll issue was just an example as per Clint_L's response:
"... I don't set out to "test" my players, and find it insulting that your response to folks disagreeing with your advice is to question our motives, like you of course have the answers and therefore anyone who rejects your Truth must be up to no good. The fact that you "can't think of any other reason why" folks aren't doing what you tell them doesn't prove their perniciousness, it speaks to your failure to look at the issue from another point of view, or to consider that other perspectives might also be valid.
For instance, having the party encounter a troll is not a test of metagaming. What an absurd idea, that I am so concerned with metagaming that I spend my time creating devious story hooks intended to trick my players. It is my assumption that we don't metagame, and so I can use staple D&D creatures without the players taking advantage of knowledge from outside of their character's experience. I make it clear at session 0 that I don't like metagaming, and my regular players and I are pretty copacetic on this point - we like immersing ourselves in the fiction of the story. ..."

So, in your universally presented view in which you assert that "the troll is a test", who, in every case, is testing? If someone like myself or Clint L can assert, "I don't set out to "test" my players," how, in a world where famous monsters like trolls actually exist, is it a test?

How does your judgment fit with Clint L's post-ending personal assertions that:
"... There are different ways to play the game, and I don't care if another group enjoys metagaming right up to having every player pull out their monster manual or adventure book whenever they feel like it. It's a gradient, and whatever works at your table, bless. But those of us who want it minimized in our games aren't having badwrongfun, and we aren't trying to test or trap our players"? Do you think we are lying?

The example of the troll looks to me like more evidence of something I observed upthread: Many who don't like "metagaming" sure do seem to go out of their way to create opportunities for it to occur in their game. This doesn't make them liars. They're just engaged in approaches that don't necessarily serve their goals all that well in my view. So it stands to reason to me that some other goal might be in play, for which I'm prosposing it's perhaps a test to see if players abide by the group's/DM's principle on this matter.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's possible to set traps for players based on the use of metagame knowledge. G. Gygax did that, with Tomb of Horrors the most famous example.

But personally, so long as everyone having fun, I don't think it matters. It's mostly a source of humour.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Imagine this:

A player looks at an object of indescript material, location, and size.

The player decides they want to break the object. Do you let them do so? And how do you do it? What is the limit? Does it depend on context or as long as the object doesn't say its unbreakable, they can break it?

Let them? What is this 'let'?

 

[greg kaye]

The example of the troll looks to me like more evidence of something I observed upthread: Many who don't like "metagaming" sure do seem to go out of their way to create opportunities for it to occur in their game. This doesn't make them liars. They're just engaged in approaches that don't necessarily serve their goals all that well in my view. So it stands to reason to me that some other goal might be in play, for which I'm prosposing it's perhaps a test to see if players abide by the group's/DM's principle on this matter.

The example of the troll looks like "having the party encounter a troll" within a session which was stated in that example as "not [being] a test of metagaming". iserith, I'd really like for you to have a chance to get this. What you have just observed is Clint_L's response: which lead with the statement, "I don't set out to "test" my player", he calls the idea of the use of a troll as a test as "an absurd idea", he states that he "finds it insulting that your response to folks disagreeing with your advice is to question our motives", and yet you then assert your universal view that "the troll is a test" utterly discounting everything that had just been claimed. If this is your level of trust here, I can only fear for the other members of your d&d groups.
At least your pulling back from "is" to "might be" is something.
Metagaming, as a stated topic, only came into this thread from its sixth page.
Many groups have no principle on the metagaming matter.
Please consider, there's always the possibility for gaming groups to also grow directly both in mutual trust and mutual understanding without a need for rigid codes of conduct.

 

[greg kaye]

It's possible to set traps for players based on the use of metagame knowledge. G. Gygax did that, with Tomb of Horrors the most famous example.

But personally, so long as everyone having fun, I don't think it matters. It's mostly a source of humour.

This, very much this!

 

[iserith]

The example of the troll looks like "having the party encounter a troll" within a session which was stated in that example as "not [being] a test of metagaming". iserith, I'd really like for you to have a chance to get this. What you have just observed is Clint_L's response: which lead with the statement, "I don't set out to "test" my player", he calls the idea of the use of a troll as a test as "an absurd idea", he states that he "finds it insulting that your response to folks disagreeing with your advice is to question our motives", and yet you then assert your universal view that "the troll is a test" utterly discounting everything that had just been claimed. If this is your level of trust here, I can only fear for the other members of your d&d groups.
At least your pulling back from "is" to "might be" is something.
Metagaming, as a stated topic, only came into this thread from its sixth page.
Many groups have no principle on the metagaming matter.
Please consider, there's always the possibility for gaming groups to also grow directly both in mutual trust and mutual understanding without a need for rigid codes of conduct.

I don't think trust has anything to do with this, nor do I impose "rigid codes of conduct" on anyone. Unless you think "Be reasonably clear with your action declaration so we can all understand what you're trying to do" is rigid. I don't think it is, and have shown by way of example how that can be accomplished with as few as 4 additional words. Certainly it's not more rigid than "Don't 'metagame' despite the fact I'm creating all these opportunities and incentives for you to 'metagame.'" That strikes me as not only more rigid, given that the player can't have their character act as they please (or risk violating the table's policy on "metagaming"), but also incoherent as an approach to the desired goal.

Someday I hope someone will explain to me how creating said opportunities in any way supports the goal of reducing or eliminating "metagaming" or maintaining "immersion" at their table. Until then, I'm inclined to believe that it's not really about that at all. It's about something else, and a test of the player seems like a possibility to me.