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

[iserith]

Here's the thing. If I did this, I would also have to take away the players' dice and character sheets. Allowing them to keep their dice sets the stage for them to give me false numbers when they roll. Letting them keep their character sheets sets the stage for them to alter their numbers and items inappropriately. Those things are no different from metagaming. Cheating is cheating. If I'm responsible for one(and I'm not), then I'm responsible for them all and I have to remove all of it or else I'm being a hypocrite.

That would only be so if "metagaming" was actually cheating. It is at your table because of your prohibition against it, apparently. If you remove that rule, then it's no longer cheating. Then just use the techniques that were already discussed in this thread and you're golden. You're creating the issue to begin with.

 

[Maxperson]

I would say "No. I reject that altered definition." for the humorous tone it has... but, I think you actually don't realize something.

If a player knows [blank] and [blank] figures into their decision process, such as by the player thinking "I must do something that is not [blank]", then they have in fact brought that knowledge into the game because they have in fact acting on that knowledge.

Not so. They have correctly determined that their character does not know that information and are choosing something that their character does know. The character is not acting on that information, since the character doesn't know it. It's impossible for a character to act on information that it doesn't know, so it's ONLY the player acting, or in this case not acting(metagaming) on it.

"That's a wraith! My character has no idea his sword won't work great on it, so I better make at least the one sword attack so I'm not a 'cheater'" is as much a choice made because of what the player knows as "That's a wraith! My character has no idea his sword won't work great on it, but it does seem clearly undead, so I'll throw holy water at it" is.

It's a player only choice. The character is not choosing to act based on knowledge of the wraith.

I think the example was actually quite telling, because plenty of the things you have labeled as "metagaming" also have an in game justification. It's just that you reject that justification as "cover" and insist the player is still "metagaming".

Justifications designed to cover cheating don't stop it from being cheating.

Implying other people do like to bore their players is bad faith discussion. And implying that running an adventure someone has gone through already is inherently boring isn't accurate.

Maybe I've been lucky then. The people I play with would be bored running the same thing twice.

 

[Maxperson]

That would only be so if "metagaming" was actually cheating.

It is actually cheating. While the DMG gives an altered version of metagaming, even it suggests that you discourage it and curb players who are engaging in it.

If you remove that rule, then it's no longer cheating.

That's true, but I don't have any interest in making cheating legal.

It also does nothing to stop the need to remove dice and character sheets from my players.......according to your idea that I'm responsible for their actions anyway.

 

[iserith]

It is actually cheating. While the DMG gives an altered version of metagaming, even it suggests that you discourage it and curb players who are engaging in it.

Only to the extent that the players get a bad result as a result of it. The examples given are underestimating a threat or wasting time on nothing important because of your knowledge of the DM, both of which potentially impact the play experience in a negative way. Which is exactly why you see me saying or quoting my Session Zero document which says it's smart play to verify assumptions before acting on them so you don't get a bad result. I took that right from the DMG.

"Metagaming thinking" is not cheating at all. The DMG says nothing about it being cheating. It's cheating at your table because of your house rule regarding "metagaming." You then proceed to run a game where "metagaming" is possible, even though you could stop it before it starts (or minimize its impact) which I find weird.

That's true, but I don't have any interest in making cheating legal.

It also does nothing to stop the need to remove dice and character sheets from my players.......according to your idea that I'm responsible for their actions anyway.

As I said upthread, I think it's a good policy to control what you can control and leave the devil the hindmost. You can control whether "metagaming" impacts your game in a negative way by the techniques already discussed. You can't control those other things.

 

[Maxperson]

Only to the extent that the players get a bad result as a result of it. The examples given are underestimating a threat or wasting time on nothing important because of your knowledge of the DM, both of which potentially impact the play experience in a negative way. Which is exactly why you see me saying or quoting my Session Zero document which says it's smart play to verify assumptions before acting on them so you don't get a bad result. I took that right from the DMG.

The examples are not exhaustive, or indicative of all that metagaming is. The definition provided by the DMG includes good things, as well as bad. Waste, as well as efficiency.

"Metagaming thinking" is not cheating at all. The DMG says nothing about it being cheating. It's cheating at your table because of your house rule regarding "metagaming." You then proceed to run a game where "metagaming" is possible, even though you could stop it before it starts (or minimize its impact) which I find weird.

You don't discourage and curb things done by the rules.

As I said upthread, I think it's a good policy to control what you can control and leave the devil the hindmost. You can control whether "metagaming" impacts your game in a negative way by the techniques already discussed. You can't control those other things.

But I could control those other things. I can do all the rolling behind the screen, or in front for that matter. They describe what they want to do and I roll it for them. Same with their sheets. It would be a pain in the ass, but it wouldn't be hard to keep their sheets and track all the changes.

 

[iserith]

The examples are not exhaustive, or indicative of all that metagaming is. The definition provided by the DMG includes good things, as well as bad. Waste, as well as efficiency.

What it doesn't say is that it's cheating. And the examples of "metagaming thinking" seems indicative of what sorts of outcomes they would want players to avoid and those are bad assumptions leading to a bad play experience. That's different than the sort of "metagaming" that some of you are railing against.

You don't discourage and curb things done by the rules.

I don't understand what you mean here.

But I could control those other things. I can do all the rolling behind the screen, or in front for that matter. They describe what they want to do and I roll it for them. Same with their sheets. It would be a pain in the ass, but it wouldn't be hard to keep their sheets and track all the changes.

Great! You know what to do then!

I run games on Roll20, even in person. All rolls are therefore visible to everyone. So I've solved this problem already.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not so. They have correctly determined that their character does not know that information and are choosing something that their character does know. The character is not acting on that information, since the character doesn't know it. It's impossible for a character to act on information that it doesn't know, so it's ONLY the player acting, or in this case not acting(metagaming) on it.



It's a player only choice. The character is not choosing to act based on knowledge of the wraith.



Justifications designed to cover cheating don't stop it from being cheating.

Maybe I've been lucky then. The people I play with would be bored running the same thing twice.

Do you think that your stance on metagaming and how you prefer for it to be handled limits your players' choices?

It really seems that way, given that any remotely experienced player will know certain things...monster vulnerabilities and other similar game constructs. So those players cannot reasonably select the most beneficial course of action in those circumstances without it being categorized as metagaming, which for you is the same as cheating.

Do you really see the maintenance of "immersion" in the fictional world in these cases as being more important than players enjoying the game?

Personally, in minor cases like this, I'd prefer to keep things moving than to bog the game down with players having their characters actively do the wrong thing. I mean....what's fun about that?

Because the bottom line is the game is intended to be fun...and I don't think that having the characters make non-optimal actions in game until some arbitrary justification for them "knowing" how to best attack the monster is introduced really sounds like fun. If that's all there is to the encounter, then the encounter is boring. And as others have said, such an encounter basically taunts the players with metagaming.

This is why some are saying that the DM can be a huge contributor to metagaming. The DM is the one who decides if there is more to this encounter than the "monster-vulnerability-when-can-we-use-fire" angle. If not, then the DM shouldn't be surprised if his players resort to using fire or silver or what have you immediately in order to spend as little game time on this very basic and boring encounter as possible.

 

[Shasarak]

That would only be so if "metagaming" was actually cheating. It is at your table because of your prohibition against it, apparently. If you remove that rule, then it's no longer cheating. Then just use the techniques that were already discussed in this thread and you're golden. You're creating the issue to begin with.

I think one of the examples used in a previous thread was Card Counting in Blackjack. This is a technique that is not illegal but the House will kick you out if they think you are doing it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I wouldn't run an adventure I know someone has gone through already. I don't like to bore my players.

Wait a sec...you've been arguing forever (not just in this thread) that true roleplaying is acting out what your character "would do" (whatever that means) and that pretending to not know stuff (such as the trolls/fire thing) is really fun.

And now suddenly that's boring?

I'm confused.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you think that your stance on metagaming and how you prefer for it to be handled limits your players' choices?

Of course it does. Tons of things about the game limit the players' choices. They only get 1 race. That's a limit. They can't change their race on the fly. That's a limit. Strength determines how much they can carry. That's a limit. Limits are not inherently bad.

It really seems that way, given that any remotely experienced player will know certain things...monster vulnerabilities and other similar game constructs. So those players cannot reasonably select the most beneficial course of action in those circumstances without it being categorized as metagaming, which for you is the same as cheating.

The most beneficial course of action would be to poof into a god and just will the enemy to die. Again, limits are not inherently bad.

Do you really see the maintenance of "immersion" in the fictional world in these cases as being more important than players enjoying the game?

For myself and many others, yes. For you, I'm guessing not.

Personally, in minor cases like this, I'd prefer to keep things moving than to bog the game down with players having their characters actively do the wrong thing. I mean....what's fun about that?

What's fun about playing your character, instead of playing a character that knows everything, even things it couldn't or shouldn't know? Lots. For me, having my PCs simply know virtually everything about the game would be boring as hell.

Because the bottom line is the game is intended to be fun...and I don't think that having the characters make non-optimal actions in game until some arbitrary justification for them "knowing" how to best attack the monster is introduced really sounds like fun. If that's all there is to the encounter, then the encounter is boring. And as others have said, such an encounter basically taunts the players with metagaming.

It only taunts some people. If you don't like it, don't play that way.