How much can you play without metagaming?

[barsoomcore]

The "modules only have three encounters and this is the third" kind of metagaming is the kind I would put in the "definitely bad" camp. In part, however, it's bad because it's very very likely to get characters into trouble whenever the DM or module writer departs from the expected formula.

And of course, it's really the DM's responsibility to make sure the players are unable to do this by keeping things fresh and lively and not falling into stale, dull patterns that only hong would find entertaining.

 

[tetsujin28]

half the time, our game becomes a kind a Talmudic scholar discussion circle, like when I asked my players at the last session how long they thought I should make a particular gather information roll/episode take.

Man, that's good!

 

[Norfleet]

I think that stat-based metagaming is a natural thing. Then again, I'm generally a rather scientifically-oriented person and approach real life in a very similar way.

On the other hand, if you're doing "three encounters in a module" type thinking, you'd best be doing it QUIETLY, because if the DM catches you, you're going to find a 4th encounter really fast. As a DM, I love setting a player up like that: Do something. Over, and over, and over, as a sort of unspoken formula. Then throw it out. Confuses the hell out of them and instills a suitable sense of surprise and terror. Plus, even though I planned it all along, and knew it would happen, I can feign total innocence and blame the player for his own stupidity. That's what good DMing is all about: Knowing who to blame for when something goes south as planned.