D&D General Guns, Germs and Metagaming- Is Meta-gaming Meta-bad or Meta-good?

[VashVet]

I've seen multiple folks here say that they are fine with metagaming like that.

Or here's an easier one. The player knowing monster weaknesses because he's been playing for 40 years and having his PC just use them, despite not knowing about them in character.

Well, as far as cheating goes, if everyone at the table is okay with it, then I guess it’s not cheating for them.

On the latter, I definitely agree - I brought that exact scenario up myself. I think it’s silly to expect a player to treat every monster as being oblivious to weaknesses they have seen time and again. I’ve even attempted to do this in game, and found the result kind of pointless.

 

[VashVet]

Negative to me but not to everyone. We have people on here openly saying they are fine with metagaming.

Yes we do need a name because I don't want to write a paragraph every time I speak of it. When I say X is objectionable because it is Y where traditionally I've used either dissociative mechanics or metagaming that is important.

I’m just saying not everyone is going to agree on the definition and yet hearing the word is going to take different people to different places (positive or negative). That makes the term functionally worthless in my eyes.

 

[saviirkad]

I understand the desire for a shared definition. I'm not sure it's entirely doable on a large enough scale for online discourse, but certainly possible at the table.

My own definition is thus: a player using knowledge and information their character doesn't have to influence the actions and capabilities of that character. I do not see it as being just another term for player skill.

I don't think of it in itself as a negative. How it's used and where the table as a whole draws their lines regarding it determines that, and that'll be different at every table. There's negative metagaming, neutral metagaming, and positive metagaming.

I ultimately think it's unavoidable. I don't think that way because of my own experiences at the table; we've drawn our lines and have had very little issue with them. Rather, it's because every online discourse I hear about metagaming, including this thread, inevitably is filled with people condemning the practice.

But, every time, the methods they share to combat it are still metagaming. Just in a different way or different direction, though not always. This more or less seems fine to me, because I do think every table draws their own lines and it just seems like they've decided this one way crosses it but this other way doesn't.

Don't call out HP totals as player shorthand for character knowledge, use narrative descriptions for how hurt you are instead, but do call out your attack roll even if everyone knows the AC because we all saw a 17 hit but not a 16, definitely don't use narrative descriptions of how you hit or missed instead of the attack roll.

Don't use your player knowledge about the monster statblock to just instantly know an enemy's weakness, instead use your player knowledge about the monster statblock to keep your character in the dark and clueless.

Don't use the fact that this is a game to influence how this world shares and collects knowledge among its people, like how kids play pretend as Trolls and Soldiers and the soldiers all have torches. Instead use the fact that this is a game to influence how this world shares and collects knowledge among its people, because the DM wants that fire weakness kept under wraps to maintain the game challenge in this specific way and not in other ways.

We can avoid the metagaming we don't like, like telling a player not to read the adventure book because they want to know every trap and secret door in a temple that the DM literally just described as appearing out of nowhere and you are the first ever to enter it.

But we can't avoid all metagaming. And if the goal is to minimize the amount of metagaming, of any kind, I do think many of those who pursue that goal are taking the wrong approach.

But maybe my definition doesn't match yours, and that's fine.

 

[Remathilis]

It would seem to me that a lot of Session 0 stuff would be metagaming. Shaping the game and game play to suit everybody's OOC requirements, desires, and expectations.

You could argue a lot of session zero stuff might be considered metagaming. If I tell you I'm running Rime of the Frostmaiden in Icewind Dale, I've given you a lot of metagame knowledge: the module name, the tone and feel of the game, where it's set, what level range we're looking at. I do that in hopes you get excited and create characters tuned to the setting and you play knowing it's a survival horror game. However, my tip of the hand could be used against me: you could read the module, you could create a character who is exceptionally suited to facing cold-using foes, etc. it's the risk I take by sharing that info that you will use it and not abuse it.

 

[Mannahnin]

You could argue a lot of session zero stuff might be considered metagaming. If I tell you I'm running Rime of the Frostmaiden in Icewind Dale, I've given you a lot of metagame knowledge: the module name, the tone and feel of the game, where it's set, what level range we're looking at. I do that in hopes you get excited and create characters tuned to the setting and you play knowing it's a survival horror game. However, my tip of the hand could be used against me: you could read the module, you could create a character who is exceptionally suited to facing cold-using foes, etc. it's the risk I take by sharing that info that you will use it and not abuse it.

Create Bonfire was a much cooler and more interesting cantrip for my Wizard in Rime of the Frostmaiden than I think it would have been in most other contexts. And after he died, not having it certainly FELT like an in-character loss. Not having someone in the party able to conjure up so much warmth and light at a moment's notice. Everything felt a bit darker and bleaker for the party on a day to day basis.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

But my talents would likely be wasted on you as you wouldn't value what I do so it still might be a waste of a slot in my game.

Well, that's quite a statement! I'll take the hint and let you get back to having your talents be appreciated only by those who like your definitional positioning.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it’s silly to expect a player to treat every monster as being oblivious to weaknesses they have seen time and again. I’ve even attempted to do this in game, and found the result kind of pointless.

You don't have to. There are skills that if successful, tell the player about the monster as PC knowledge. Then the player can target the weaknesses. If unsuccessful, the player should at the very least start the combat using the attack types the PC typically uses.

If the fighter uses his greatsword 99% of the time, if he lacks the knowledge he shouldn't ditch it in favor of a blunt weapon in round 1 against a creature vulnerable to blunt damage. If after a round or two it's apparent(and it should be) that the greatsword isn't as effective as normal, trying something different is appropriate and okay.

On the other hand, if the wizard is a fire mage and opens up every combat with fireball, scorching ray and/or firebolts, then even if the PC knows nothing about trolls, it's not metagaming for the PC to use fire from the get go.

It's really easy to play with character knowledge, rather than player knowledge, even against creatures you as a player have seen many times.

 

[VashVet]

You don't have to. There are skills that if successful, tell the player about the monster as PC knowledge. Then the player can target the weaknesses. If unsuccessful, the player should at the very least start the combat using the attack types the PC typically uses.

If the fighter uses his greatsword 99% of the time, if he lacks the knowledge he shouldn't ditch it in favor of a blunt weapon in round 1 against a creature vulnerable to blunt damage. If after a round or two it's apparent(and it should be) that the greatsword isn't as effective as normal, trying something different is appropriate and okay.

On the other hand, if the wizard is a fire mage and opens up every combat with fireball, scorching ray and/or firebolts, then even if the PC knows nothing about trolls, it's not metagaming for the PC to use fire from the get go.

It's really easy to play with character knowledge, rather than player knowledge, even against creatures you as a player have seen many times.

I suppose one can design your way out of it with a rule but I personally prefer to let player experience sub for the character’s knowledge. Again, I go back to vampires. We know their weaknesses through myth and stories - I assume a PC would too, particularly in a setting where they are real. It’s simple and there’s no fuss.

 

[eudyptes]

Godel, Escher, Bach.

Ah, the classic Cubs double play team. Godel to Escher to Bach!

 

[Maxperson]

I suppose one can design your way out of it with a rule but I personally prefer to let player experience sub for the character’s knowledge. Again, I go back to vampires. We know their weaknesses through myth and stories - I assume a PC would too, particularly in a setting where they are real. It’s simple and there’s no fuss.

Do we, though? We know the Hollywood version, but there are many versions of vampires from around the world, and their weaknesses differ. Which is right? Without looking it up, what are the weaknesses of the Chinese vampire and Malaysian vampire?