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

[Caliburn101]

So, like, "they cannot help but be informed by information that their character does not have" doesn't imply that information is either that possessed by the player *or* the character? Why can't a piece of information be known by both and acted on accordingly? Your analogy left me with the impression this is not the case.

Just to clarify my position using your conversation as a contrast. I am talking about metagaming as when rules knowledge is used by a player to advantage a character who doesn't have it; I am not saying all character actions have to be 'medieval/fantasy' simulationist or they are metagaming - which appears to be what you're saying, which is, frankly, many steps too far...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...One does not assume that one's character knows about fire and trolls regeneration...

But more than one, so far, do assume incorrectly that this is even relevant.

The example in which trolls and fire got brought up? The player in that example - me - was assuming that the character didn't know, and was just reacting to the stimuli of an attacking monster with the already in-hand dangerous object.

Then the DM jumped on me, and Max has similarly jumped on the example, and you are now as well, and assumed what I was assuming my character knew and/or that characters can only be role-played as guessing if the DM believes the player to know the correct answer - and then I, the only person actually trying to keep my player knowledge out of the decision process, get directly accused of poor behavior (not by you just yet, thankfully), and have implications made that I broke Wheaton's Law and am somehow using "smoke and mirrors arguments" rather than valid arguments.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Caliburn101]

But more than one, so far, do assume incorrectly that this is even relevant.

The example in which trolls and fire got brought up? The player in that example - me - was assuming that the character didn't know, and was just reacting to the stimuli of an attacking monster with the already in-hand dangerous object.

Then the DM jumped on me, and Max has similarly jumped on the example, and you are now as well, and assumed what I was assuming my character knew and/or that characters can only be role-played as guessing if the DM believes the player to know the correct answer - and then I, the only person actually trying to keep my player knowledge out of the decision process, get directly accused of poor behavior (not by you just yet, thankfully), and have implications made that I broke Wheaton's Law and am somehow using "smoke and mirrors arguments" rather than valid arguments.

Actually I was using the troll example as a well known general one - I had no idea you'd brought it up specifically.

Please rest assured that if I make a point directed to one person I do try to make it clear, rather than indulging in the kind of passive aggressive posts one sometimes sees here.

I take it the character had a torch to hand already in that, or something similar and used it? That wouldn't be taken by me as a GM as metagaming, but then GM'ing is a judgement call at all times, so is to a lesser extent being a player.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Given that I DM for kids, I often hear, "But he started it." And my usual response is that if you wrestle with pigs, you end up dirty. Doesn't matter who starts something; you only have responsibility for your own actions.

Ironically, responding to gratuitous snark with smarmy pedantry is really not so different from doing so with childish retorts.

You often employ the reductio ad absurdum, or (as you put it) "facetious" argument. Your argument, essentially, is that since we (players) have knowledge that our characters do not have, either acting on it or not acting on it is metagaming, and since it's all metagaming no matter what, why bother caring?

Incorrect. My argument is that some metagaming (maybe even most metagaming) is fine, while some of it falls under the "being a jerk" rubric, so complaining about 'metagaming' and pretending it's always bad is just silly.

And so (using your preferred form) I pointed out that in a similar fashion, one might say that actors shouldn't act, because after all, they cannot help but be informed by information that their character does not have, either acting or not acting on it.

That still makes no sense to me. I'm not suggesting that players not try to do something because of the inevitability of metagaming; I'm saying we should stop worrying about it if they do.

That's okay; as I've written many times, different people play different ways. I don't believe I am going to convince you, and you should probably be aware that your position will not convince those who disagree with you.

And all of this illustrates nothing more than different people have different preferences. The things that are fun for you (the DM "targeting" your player due to metagame considerations, aka "fun") would be acceptable at my table; having seen many people post here, I can guarantee you that there are quite a few people who would argue strenuously that the DM was being unfair, arbitrary, capricious, and removing player agency etc.

Good tables are good, bad tables are bad, etc.

And yet, there are a number of people here who can't resist appending to that, "...but your way is not really roleplaying."

 

[Corwin]

Just to clarify my position using your conversation as a contrast. I am talking about metagaming as when rules knowledge is used by a player to advantage a character who doesn't have it; I am not saying all character actions have to be 'medieval/fantasy' simulationist or they are metagaming - which appears to be what you're saying, which is, frankly, many steps too far...

But that means you admit there are steps. So your players must constantly walk on eggshells, fearing they will take that one step too far and be chastised for being a dirty metagamer?

 

[Corwin]

A person (whether a player, in an RPG, or an actor, in the analogy) will necessarily have information that their character does not have. For example, that this is a game/performance. Or the life experiences of the player/actor.*

And visa-versa, of course.

The fictional character (I hope, obviously?) does not have that.

Huh?

It doesn't mean that there cannot be overlap; in most cases, for example, both the real person and the fictional person (absent a very strange milieu) will know that water is wet. This is just the exceptionally banal point that a REAL LIFE PERSON cannot help but have information that their fictional character does not have.

And visa-versa, of course.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shasarak]

Where are you getting a monologue from? It's not mentioned in the example - all it says is the rogue goes to the house and gets trapped in a dungeon (probably by my old favourite, the chute trap). He may never have encountered anybody at all before getting trapped.

If Villains do not monologue then how do the Players find out their cunning plan? And of course if the Villain stops to monologue then that just opens up a perfect opportunity for the Players to attack.

Not sure if you're being facetious here. If not, how would the player meta-game his way out of hitting a trap?

What's unclear about the example is whether the rogue-trap incident was played out by note/in private or in front of the whole table.

The meta-game is not going off alone to explore, so therefore when he hits the "chute" trap the rest of the party is there to cast water breathing on him.

If he gets captured or trapped or whatever after wandering off alone then it is his own fault.