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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Um .... I happen to think that those people that are less fond of "metagaming" would see a clear distinction between the two. YMMV.

Do you mean between the two examples Max made up that I was quoting? Or are you just saying that people would recognize my two examples as different examples of metagaming? Because if you are saying people would recognize either of my examples as "metagaming", you'll have to give me a fully detailed explanation of exactly how they would do that.

After looking at this thread, I am reminded of one of those issues we see pop up occasionally. Which is roleplaying your intelligence score.
I would assume that groups (a) and (b) roughly correlate to your overall feelings about "metagaming."

Assumptions aren't all that useful.

My overall feelings on the issue of role-playing and a character's intelligence score are this: the mechanics of the game do what they say they do, and nothing more. In the case of ability scores and how they affect role-playing, that would be by way of the text on page 14 of the PHB, where it says "Take your character's ability scores and race into account as you flesh out his or her appearance and personality." and then provides some examples with a lot of use of the word "might" and no usage of the word "must"

And my overall feelings about metagaming have, I feel, been as clearly explained throughout this thread as they can be... which I admit is disappointing considering how many folks still don't quite understand them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You have one example of roleplaying, and one example of metagaming disguised as roleplaying.

That is hilarious. "LOL" is a cliché, but that literally made me laugh out loud.

I'm now imagining a brand new player at Max's table, and when these big monsters attack the PCs camp this new player decides it would be cool to grab a burning log as a weapon. Max starts screaming "You dirty metagamer!!! Your character wouldn't know what trolls are!! You lied about never playing D&D!!!" and the poor guy is all, "What did I do wrong?"

 

[Maxperson]

That is hilarious. "LOL" is a cliché, but that literally made me laugh out loud.

I'm now imagining a brand new player at Max's table, and when these big monsters attack the PCs camp this new player decides it would be cool to grab a burning log as a weapon. Max starts screaming "You dirty metagamer!!! Your character wouldn't know what trolls are!! You lied about never playing D&D!!!" and the poor guy is all, "What did I do wrong?"

That wouldn't happen and you know it. We've had this discussion before. Take your disingenuous BS elsewhere.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

My overall feelings on the issue of role-playing and a character's intelligence score are this: the mechanics of the game do what they say they do, and nothing more. In the case of ability scores and how they affect role-playing, that would be by way of the text on page 14 of the PHB, where it says "Take your character's ability scores and race into account as you flesh out his or her appearance and personality." and then provides some examples with a lot of use of the word "might" and no usage of the word "must"

Same.

Sure, it's easy to fall back on the Intelligence score as a more or less 1:1 correlation with the stew of cognitive traits that we tend to wrap up under the vague term "intelligence". And that's usually what I do if I can't think of something better: I'll play a high-Int character as a scholarly or scientific sort, and a low-Int character as a mouth-breathing anti-metagaming lout. Just because I can't think of a unique manifestation for every trait for every character.

But ultimately all an Int score "means" is a modifier to to Intelligence-based checks, so if I can think of an idea I love (like the genius Warlock who is required by her patron to play dumb) then I'll happily do that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

Suppose my character hears there are skeletons in the woods, and I decide that my character (who has never fought skeletons) wants to bring a blunt weapon. Is this the point where the DM should step in and say something? Because I am obviously relying on my knowledge of skeletons as a player here.

I might have a good explanation why my character wants to bring a blunt weapon. But even if I didn't, another player with no knowledge about the game's mechanics could also choose to bring a blunt weapon. Should the DM make an exception here? Are the actions that a character is allowed to take, determined by the knowledge of the player?

I think what I'm getting at here, is the question: Why would it be wrong to play my character as if controlling a pawn? Can you not play your character as a pawn AND also role play at the same time?

Any choice the player makes for the character is playing the role of an adventurer in the setting and therefore roleplaying. Some folks just add another layer to it: "Would my character make that choice?" To that, my answer is that there is no "would," only "could." And, yes, it could, thus the choice is valid and in-character. [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] makes this case when comparing the validity of an action taken by a newbie versus taken by a veteran. Somehow, the veteran's choice is suspect whereas the newbie's is not, based on some subjective sense by someone not even playing the character that the player is "metagaming," even though the character could take the action.

Could the choice be a departure from established characterization? Yes. Does that mean you're not roleplaying? No - some characters are complex and contradictory and not consistent in their choices. Some undergo change brought about by their circumstances, either temporarily or permanently. Change is at the heart of character development and I, for one, enjoy seeing how throwing oneself at life and death situations over and over changes a character over time.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, yes, but there are numerous ways to break the social compact (or "be a jerk") and most of them aren't metagaming. Which is why the discussion is helpful. Not to mention issues regarding the acceptability of metagaming date back to the 1970s (the DAWN OF D&D) so it's not like this is a conversation that is as simple as "don't be a jerk."

After all, not paying your portion of the pizza money is being a jerk, but not metagaming.
Not showing up for the game is being a jerk, but not metagaming.
Engaging in certain behaviors at many tables (whether language or certain "content") is being a jerk, but not metagaming.
Some tables consider "powergaming" being a jerk, and others consider "too much roleplaying/ACTING BRILLIANT" being a jerk, but that's not metagaming either.
And PvP? Can either be accepted, or the height of jerkdom.

For that matter, the player who rolls out of sight, and then announces their 20s on a regular basis is a CHEATING CHEATER and a jerk, but isn't metagaming.

As we can see from this thread, different tables have different allowances for metagaming, so "being a jerk" by metagaming at one table wouldn't be jerk at another table. Which is helpful to know.

Ok, so what sub-category of "being a jerk" does not paying for pizza belong to? How about not showing up for a game? If we need to define the categories in order to have a useful conversation about manners (or "social contract" or whatever you want to call it) then don't we need categories for those, too?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You have one example of roleplaying, and one example of metagaming disguised as roleplaying.

This is why your chosen definition for the term "metagaming" is meaningless.

You've just decided that a particular bit of knowledge that the player has must influence that player's character's actions.

Because if I explain the personality and attitude of my character and how that means he would do what I want him to do, it is "metagaming disguised as roleplaying" because you say I am choosing that action because I know what I know.

And if I, knowing what I know, choose a course of action for the character that is specifically not the above action - while I could have chosen the above action, had you not provided me some piece of information - then I am still "metagaming", unless your definition for the term isn't "using what I know, rather than what the character knows, to choose my character's actions." because I would not be avoiding that particular action if I didn't know what I know.