D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[machineelf]

I don't. Why let this disturb your eyebrow at all?

Because it would alert me to a personality type that often has a play style that does not mesh well with my own, and as a DM it would alert me to a potential problems ahead.

We have such different views on what we each want in our games that I'm not sure if this will make much sense to you, but there is a personality type who approaches rpgs from a perspective where their goal is to win and get every advantage they can. Playing a character faithfully to that characters traits and knowledge is not high on their list of priorities. And they just don't approach the game in a way where they would ever say, "you know, my character just wouldn't know about that advantage, so I'm not going to take it."

I mean, we want to "win" and take advantages when we see them, but for me everything falls under the umbrella of playing my character faithfully to his traits and background. For other people, that is just nonsense that gets in the way.

That kind of stuff is important to me. I get that Not everyone shares that perspective, but it is mine.

I once played in a group where most of ther players, and one guy in particular, were min max power gamers. When our group would be in a tavern talking to some NPCs and having a good time role-playing, this one guy would get so frustrated. He just wanted to get out there and kill things.

He would try to stretch every rule as far to his advantage as possible, to the point where he really was breaking rules, but the DM let him. His interest wasn't verisimilitude or developing his character's life story. It was a tactical game for him, and that's about it.

He would constantly tell the other players what they should do based on what he felt was the most tactically advantageous play to make. A few times my character would willingly forgo the most tactical move that he told me I should do and instead do something less optimal but more online with what my character would do. He would get so confused by this and look at me with a guffaw.

I'd never put our group in a dangerous spot, but my character had personality traits that would influence his decisions. He didn't seem to get this.

Anyway, I've played with those types before, and when someone seems to instantly use the most advantageous play by using meta knowledge he as a player had but his character doesn't have, it throws red flags for me that his play style and my play style are not going to work. I'd needed more evidence than one single encounter to know though, but my "eyebrow" would be raised, so to speak.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[machineelf]

Wow, you definitely don't get it. At all. No matter what words I type, you are just concluding that I am (we are) talking about a game of pure mechanics, stripped of interesting character development and storytelling, aren't you?

Imagine if I just dismissed your version of roleplaying as "talking with a British accent and saying 'thou' and 'thee' a lot." Then after you carefully tried to explain about adopting a persona and trying to get inside that character's head, I replied, "Yeah, I get it. You're speaking in Old English and throwing in Monty Python jokes. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course..."




Do you only have adventures in "dungeons" because, you know, that's how D&D was explained (and named) from the beginning? Or have you realized that you can also have adventures in floating palaces, alternate planes, opulent cities, and pirate ships? As Bawylie has explained, the state-of-the-art of roleplaying has evolved a lot in 40 years.

Like you, I don't really care how others play at their own tables. Why this matters is that in this public forum...about roleplaying games...you and others repeatedly make false and offensive accusations that people who don't play like you are not roleplaying; that they're powergaming and/or stripping the game down to raw mechanics. We've tried to illuminate, but you don't seem interested. And that's fine, you can believe whatever you want. But if you are going to persist in your insulting belief please at least keep it to yourself.

You really come across as abrasive to me, elf crusher, and I am trying not to be that way I this thread.

I'm not saying you don't have character development. I presume you do. I just find metagaming to be a hindrance to role-playing a characters' traits and knowledge, because you as a player, if you metagame, give your character more knowledge than he's supposed to have. That's the definition of what metagaming is. If you don't mind that, then do it, I honestly won't lose sleep over it. I'm sure your game style is fun and That's what is most important.

That's just my opinion. I'm not sure why that's touched a nerve for you or why you approach me in this thread in such a combative way.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[machineelf]

And I wasn't saying you specifically didn't have a backstory in your games. I am saying certain people could forgo those things and still consider it role playing. There are a lot of different ways to do it.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[machineelf]

you and others repeatedly make false and offensive accusations that people who don't play like you are not roleplaying; that they're powergaming and/or stripping the game down to raw mechanics. We've tried to illuminate, but you don't seem interested. And that's fine, you can believe whatever you want. But if you are going to persist in your insulting belief please at least keep it to yourself.

I don't get why you think I've been offensive to you or anyone, or why you think I can't give my opinion on a topic that you are giving your opinion on. I don't get why you think I'm not interested when I've been in this thread having this discussion.

I've said many times here that this is simply my opinion, it is how I prefer to play, and I've said that I understand other people do things differently. I've gone out of my way to be nice in my responses, to try to quell the anger you have toward me, or at least to understand it, and I've say multiple times, to each their own, and that you're not doing it wrong if you and your table are enjoying the experience.

We have different approaches, and there is nothing wrong with that. But this is a forum where people discuss ideas. Is there something wrong with me participating in a disscussion on the nature of role playing? Something wrong with me saying, "this is what I think about it"? What exactly had bothered you so much about me simply sharing my opinion I the matter?

Why, in a discussion forum, would you tell someone to keep their opinions to themselves? Especially when that person has tried to approach you in a respectful way. Just because we disagree on something mean you should take offense or tell the other person to keep their opinions to themselves, on a discussion forum.

I really never intended to touch a nerve, and I'm sorry if I have. I didn't think I expressed anything novel or unusual in my approach to role playing, I never said other people have to play the game the way I like to play it, and I don't even like all this attention. But somehow I did touch a nerve, and while I've tried to have a considerate and respectful exchange in this thread, there's been a lot of animosity and anger here, so I'm out.

All I've ever said I this thread is, this is what I think role playing is, this is why I think metagaming breaks immersion, those are my preferences and people may approach it a different way. As long as you're having fun, then that's what matters.




Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Arial Black]

I've just remembered! That druid didn't use slots to cast water breathing on the party! It's a ritual, so no slots used, can be cast on 10 willing creatures and lasts 24 hours!

Why would you not do that, every single day?

...er...have I missed anything...?

 

[iserith]

Because it would alert me to a personality type that often has a play style that does not mesh well with my own, and as a DM it would alert me to a potential problems ahead.

We have such different views on what we each want in our games that I'm not sure if this will make much sense to you, but there is a personality type who approaches rpgs from a perspective where their goal is to win and get every advantage they can. Playing a character faithfully to that characters traits and knowledge is not high on their list of priorities. And they just don't approach the game in a way where they would ever say, "you know, my character just wouldn't know about that advantage, so I'm not going to take it."

I mean, we want to "win" and take advantages when we see them, but for me everything falls under the umbrella of playing my character faithfully to his traits and background. For other people, that is just nonsense that gets in the way.

That kind of stuff is important to me. I get that Not everyone shares that perspective, but it is mine.

I once played in a group where most of ther players, and one guy in particular, were min max power gamers. When our group would be in a tavern talking to some NPCs and having a good time role-playing, this one guy would get so frustrated. He just wanted to get out there and kill things.

He would try to stretch every rule as far to his advantage as possible, to the point where he really was breaking rules, but the DM let him. His interest wasn't verisimilitude or developing his character's life story. It was a tactical game for him, and that's about it.

He would constantly tell the other players what they should do based on what he felt was the most tactically advantageous play to make. A few times my character would willingly forgo the most tactical move that he told me I should do and instead do something less optimal but more online with what my character would do. He would get so confused by this and look at me with a guffaw.

I'd never put our group in a dangerous spot, but my character had personality traits that would influence his decisions. He didn't seem to get this.

Anyway, I've played with those types before, and when someone seems to instantly use the most advantageous play by using meta knowledge he as a player had but his character doesn't have, it throws red flags for me that his play style and my play style are not going to work. I'd needed more evidence than one single encounter to know though, but my "eyebrow" would be raised, so to speak.

So it triggers you.

 

[Lanefan]

And now to catch up on yet another thread explosion...

Putting the only clues that could possibly alert a player to the challenge present in their character's environment behind a pass-fail roll gate is designing the challenge specifically to be "gotcha" in nature. There is no necessity for every clue to be missable, unless the intent is "Gotcha" style play.

Maybe there are no clues. Or maybe the character missed them.

The flip side to this, unless a DM is very careful to always describe every little thing (which can get tedious in a hurry for all involved), is that the DM only starts pointing out things like mildew or rot when it matters (i.e. when there's a water-based challenge nearby) rather than all the other times when it doesn't...leading to players out-of-character saying (or thinking) "Uh-oh - the DM's suddenly talking about rot and mildew - better look out for a water trap". Seen this before, I have, and it bugs me every time.

Actually, my argument is that the character doesn't have to know anything special in order to choose to cast a spell as a precaution.

You don't have to know you are going to be attacked today to cast mage armor.
You don't have to know that the dungeon is full of flame-jet traps to cast protection from energy.
And you don't have to know the DM has secreted away a drowning trap and designed it so your character can't possibly guess at its presence to cast water breathing.

It's a question of likelihood, I suppose. Mage Armour is generic enough that casting it all the time just makes sense. Protection From Energy...maybe? Water Breathing, however, is a lot more specific.

I think there is an important distinction to make when thinking about traps. That being that while their in-character design might indeed be to go unnoticed so that people fall into them, which itself isn't necessarily the case because traps that are obviously present also work to dissuade interlopers (like how the "Brinks Security" sign outside a house, not just that there is an alarm system within the house, deters break-ins),

Yep. And sometimes there's a sign without an alarm system at all...just like something that might look like a trap is in fact safe as houses.

the game-element design is intended for players and characters to interact with them as a form of challenge.

I'm not that worried about the game element side. I do, however, take realism into account e.g. how do those who live(d) here deal with this trap in their day-to-day lives - is there a hidden bypass, or did they fly, or was it put in in order to keep the place safe when people were deserting it, etc.

By making this statement you are implying that I have suggested characters do have "omniscient powers" and do "know everything that every other character at the table knows". That implication is false, I have done no such thing.

I don't think you've said this but I'm 99% sure others in your camp have, more or less, or at least very strongly implied it; and I know I sometimes forget who said what among those I'm debating with. Though this one wasnt my mess-up allow me to apologize in advance if I do anything similar.

A surprise monster still has interaction.

Unless it one-shots you, on the receiving end of which I've been more than once.

A surprise trap doesn't involve any choices for the player to make about the trap, no actions to take to interact with the trap, and the result is basically an instantaneous thing - even if the result is a dead character.

Assuming the trap is a killer, yes. Not all traps are.

My favourite trap type is the resetting "chute trap" where you fall through the floor down a greased chute, or slide, and get deposited somewhere else - usually but not always a jail or dungeon cell - with no way back. Minimal or no damage but you're cut off from the party unless they decide to follow you (assuming they know where you are at all; the scout-ahead rogue from the water trap could just as easily have hit this one instead, and his party still don't know where he is or why he hasn't reported in).

Lan-"divide and conquer"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Reporting from the sick bed.

Get well soon, eh!

We as SMs also set the stage and make it possible for PCs to steal from and kill other PCs. We expect them not to do so.

Well, you might expect that. I don't; all's fair in love and war 'round here.

If they do, then they are not welcome in the kind of game I run.

Obviously, your decision to make; it's your game.

It is the player's fault, not my fault as the DM, if they try to kill other PCs.

Players plural, sometimes; the killing might well be in retaliation for something another player/character initiated. (story: the very first character I ever played did exactly this. He joined a party, ran with them briefly, then against all his [rather over-strong] sense of honour got charmed and seduced by another party member. On realizing what had happened after the charm wore off he plotted his revenge; and two mornings later she woke up dead. I admitted the murder when asked; the party put me on drumhead trial then hung me from a tree until dead.)

Lan-"amazingly, at greatly different times later in that campaign both those characters were revived and went on to long careers; though - perhaps fortunately - they never met again"-efan

 

[Imaculata]

Assuming the trap is a killer, yes. Not all traps are.

My favourite trap type is the resetting "chute trap" where you fall through the floor down a greased chute, or slide, and get deposited somewhere else - usually but not always a jail or dungeon cell - with no way back. Minimal or no damage but you're cut off from the party unless they decide to follow you (assuming they know where you are at all; the scout-ahead rogue from the water trap could just as easily have hit this one instead, and his party still don't know where he is or why he hasn't reported in).

Lan-"divide and conquer"-efan

I think I would still want my players to have some sort of choice, even if the trap is merely of the party-divide kind. As a DM I always point out at least something for the players to react to. For example:

"This hallways seems completely clean, unlike the other dusty tunnels you passed through earlier."

Right. I agree with you here. Aaron's DM can't read his mind. I have to admit to him though that if I knew he was a player with a good amount of playing experience who likely knew about a trolls weakness to fire (and many people do know that) and the first thing he did in a fight with one is to pick up a fiery log to attack it, it would raise my eyebrow.

I would not likely say anything, but it would seem awfully suspicious to me, and I would try to notice of I saw a pattern in future gameplay.

Here's what I would do: I would not care. It is just a troll. I do not care how they kill the troll, and the challenge of the troll should not rely purely on a gotcha. What my advise would be to all DM's, would be to stop caring about silly things like whether the PC's do or do not know the weakness of a troll, and instead just focus on the things that DO matter. Such as making the challenges interesting, making sure the players have fun, and making sure that they work together as a team.

 

[Lanefan]

Wow, you definitely don't get it. At all. No matter what words I type, you are just concluding that I am (we are) talking about a game of pure mechanics, stripped of interesting character development and storytelling, aren't you?

Mechanics, character development, storytelling: all are part of the game, and this should - but sometimes doesn't - go without saying.

However, are any of those three things better served by characters acting on knowledge they do not and can not have? Or by players basing their characters' actions on outside knowledge rather than what the character itself would reasonably know? That's the double-headed core question here as I see it; my answers are "no" and "no", and my contention is that they in fact serve the latter two worse.

Do you only have adventures in "dungeons" because, you know, that's how D&D was explained (and named) from the beginning? Or have you realized that you can also have adventures in floating palaces, alternate planes, opulent cities, and pirate ships? As Bawylie has explained, the state-of-the-art of roleplaying has evolved a lot in 40 years.

Don't matter much...adventuring is still adventuring when you get right down to it, regardless of the backdrop.

Why this matters is that in this public forum...about roleplaying games...you and others repeatedly make false and offensive accusations that people who don't play like you are not roleplaying; that they're powergaming and/or stripping the game down to raw mechanics.

Both of which are, in a way, just more versions of "playing in bad faith" as I see it. I can't speak to the 'strip it down to raw mechanics' as I've not seen that one used (though it's been a long thread, I easily could have missed it many times over), but in my view the 'powergaming' charge holds some water; players who use info they or their characters shouldn't have are - quite often - just looking to squeeze out another advantage for themselves or their party in the same manner as when they build their character(s) to squeeze out every possible numeratic advantage whether it makes in-game sense or not...which to me is also playing in bad faith.

Lanefan