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

[Ricochet]

I agree that a player using his or her knowledge of every monster and spell can be quite bad for the rest of the players. It can negatively impact other players' enjoyment of the campaign, particularly if the rest of the players didn't know a monsters stats/weaknesses/etc by heart. I also agree, both as GM and player, that trial and error can be very fun.

I have a player in my group who often goes. "Oh, a SOMETHING MONSTER. We'll just do A,B,C" and the rest of the players desperately try to have their characters NOT know it all afterwards, and are disappointed by having things spoiled by what I would define as OOC knowledge by a PC. After the other players said how they felt about it, the player in question has become less prone to blurt these things out, but definitely still uses the knowledge for any character he/she is playing.

As the GM, I find it slightly annoying and I don't understand the appeal of presenting every character made with all the information the PLAYER knows, but I don't want to fall into the trap of changing every monster just to challenge the one player who already has all the answers.

 

[Caliburn101]

Yes - the issue of one player knowing more than others and ruining their sense of discovery is an angle I had not yet considered, and is yet another string to the metagaming slaying bow...

 

[Imaculata]

I agree that a player using his or her knowledge of every monster and spell can be quite bad for the rest of the players. It can negatively impact other players' enjoyment of the campaign, particularly if the rest of the players didn't know a monsters stats/weaknesses/etc by heart.

Why put them in this position in the first place?

I also agree, both as GM and player, that trial and error can be very fun.

And yet with the example you provide, you do not illustrate this fun. You only illustrate the reduction of fun for the other players. But you have not illustrated that the trial and error in itself is fun.

I have a player in my group who often goes. "Oh, a SOMETHING MONSTER. We'll just do A,B,C" and the rest of the players desperately try to have their characters NOT know it all afterwards,

Why do they do that? Can't they just shrug and say "okay"? Couldn't you as a DM provide the same information to your players?

For example, my players once stumbled upon an underground pirate lair, full of skeleton pirates. I told my players:

"Judging by the lack of vital organs in these creatures, you suspect your normal weapons aren't going to be very effective. Also, while the skeletons lack eyes, they have brightly glowing green lights in their eye sockets. It is fair to assume that they can probably see just fine. Whether they can also hear you, you do not (yet) know."

After the other players said how they felt about it, the player in question has become less prone to blurt these things out, but definitely still uses the knowledge for any character he/she is playing.

Why would this be an issue?

As the GM, I find it slightly annoying and I don't understand the appeal of presenting every character made with all the information the PLAYER knows, but I don't want to fall into the trap of changing every monster just to challenge the one player who already has all the answers.

I don't think you need to change every monster, but you can occasionally mix it up to get out of your own comfort zone, and to surprise veteran players.

For example, I once confronted my players with mummies that did not cause Mummyrot, but Searot. Similar, but different. My veteran players assumed that being touched by a mummy was bad, which still held true, but the effect of the disease was less deadly.

 

[Caliburn101]

Strawmen often are surprising. It must be their high initiative. But if you're done beating up the argument that I did not put forward, can we perhaps address the argument that I did make? Which is as follows:

Do creature immunities and weaknesses need to be kept a secret in order for the creatures themselves to be a challenge? Does the challenge of an encounter with these creatures rely purely on the players not knowing, or pretending not to know, what they are weak against? Or can these creatures be just as much of a challenge if you DO know their weaknesses and immunities?

For future reference, I may on occasion want to take a point to it's extreme logical endpoint (in this case where does one draw the line on metagaming, and if you argue it's ok in principle then you have to accept the absurdity of it taken to extremes...) just to point out how ridiculous I think it is.

Now, you've been good enough to clarify your argument sufficiently, although I could waste time pointing out that from my perspective you've actually narrowed it down, but that is an argument I don't want to get into, so let's agree to disagree on that point.

No encounter relies solely on the unknown elements of the monsters involved, but these are a core element of what is a combat-heavy game.

I can illustrate how wrong-footed I feel your argument is by mentioning Call of Cthulhu.

Just try running that with players whose characters know what the best way to deal with each monster is and see how dull as dishwater that is.

In fact with D&D I have a very recent example to tell you. I recently ran a game where the characters were in a high elven crypt and had encountered undead. One of the players was a Cleric of the Death Goddess and specialised in putting undead 'to rest'. A mummified elven warrior rose from sarcophagus and the Cleric made a Religion role (with advantage due to their speciality) and when they succeeded, shouted out for the group to use fire. It was actually a Venemous Mummy from Tome of Beasts and the group found themselves poisoned and fighting for their lives after the Wizard hit it squarely with a Scorching Ray.

After the game, this surprise and the ensuing chaos and attempts to regain control of the enemy and the situation got discussed with great animation by the players and I was complemented on the encounter and how exciting it had been. Everyone thought so, and it is regarded as one of the high point encounters of the dungeon.

That would not have been a thing without the surprise... a surprise written into the monster stat block to do exactly that - surprise the players when they use fire on a mummy.

The designers at Kobold Press clearly agree with the viewpoint on this I advocate when it comes to the issue of players knowing the abilities and weaknesses of the monsters. That much is clear from the design n'est pas?

Gas spores anyone?... dopplegangers?... medusa with their hoods up?... Illusionist npcs?... MIMICS!

Knowing in advance is bad news for immersion and I don't see any logical validity in the counter-argument. The game just isn't designed that way, doesn't assume the PC will have godlike knowledge of the many threats monsters pose and if every weakness is known the moment the thing appears, then CR goes right out of the window as well.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, but that didn't quite answer my question. Does the challenge of these creatures rely on their specific weakness (or immunity)?

In some cases yes, others no; or not so much.

Skeletons, lycanthropes and the like can be beaten without knowing their weakness / vulnerability. It just takes longer, but the challenge doesn't rely on it as they can be dealt with in other ways.

Trolls, vampires, and other creatures that can only be killed by knowing their weakness, however, become a LOT more challenging if you don't know (or learn during the encounter) their particular weakness / vulnerability. If you don't know it takes fire or acid to put a troll down and keep it there it Just. Keeps. Coming. Back. If you don't know how to finish off a vampire you're most likely gonna see it again once it's had a little rest in its coffin. And so on. So here, knowing or not knowing the weakness makes a huge difference to the challenge presented; the challenge itself doesn't rely on the weakness but the ability to overcome it does.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Why put them in this position in the first place?

So the DM's just supposed to tell these new players the best way to deal with whatever they face, rather than let them learn it for themselves through play...and, yes, trial and error?

Why would this be an issue?

Because, as I've said a dozen or more times already, player knowledge does not and should not equal character knowledge.

Were that my game I'd have long since had a talk with that player about conflating the two, and if it continued he'd soon be out.

I don't think you need to change every monster, but you can occasionally mix it up to get out of your own comfort zone, and to surprise veteran players.

For example, I once confronted my players with mummies that did not cause Mummyrot, but Searot. Similar, but different. My veteran players assumed that being touched by a mummy was bad, which still held true, but the effect of the disease was less deadly.

And here you in fact rather neatly make my point for me.

You changed the monster up to allow your players the fun of discovering something new and learning by doing...by trial and error...rather than just using what they think they as players already know; yet you'd deny that same fun to the new players in [MENTION=2024]ParagonofVirtue[/MENTION] 's example by allowing a veteran player to spoil it and then suggest the DM just should have told them the tricks. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Lanefan

 

[Ricochet]

Why put them in this position in the first place?

I didn't. I can't stop a player from speaking. I guess I could have never presented any monsters or spells or events, but that would be boring.

And yet with the example you provide, you do not illustrate this fun. You only illustrate the reduction of fun for the other players. But you have no illustrated that the trial and error in itself is fun.

This has been debated many times, particularly by Lanefan. The characters learning things, adapting, and overcoming, is considered fun at some tables, mine included. Walking unprepared into Mordor can be fun. Again, at least for my group. Other groups find fun in other ways. There's no wrong way imo, this is just MY preferred way both as a GM and player.

Why do they do that? Can't they just shrug and say "okay"? Couldn't you as a DM provide the same information to your players?

Why would this be an issue?

Because it is like sitting next to someone at the movies who keeps spoiling the next scene. It's not something everyone enjoys. "So guys, this is a FIRE-IMMUNE WRAITHWOMBAT and this is its statblock. Go to town." As a GM I get to surprise players with positive and negative effects of their actions when player knowledge isn't always brought into the PCs actions. As a player I like the unknown too, and I like having to find the weaknesses and have my character evolve. Five out of six players in my group prefer interacting with the campaign world to learn things, rather than have player knowledge - however subconsciously as can be done - dictate their actions. As has also been discussed in-depth, once you know, you can't NOT know it no matter how hard you try, but you can still try and play "what would my character do in this scenario".

I don't think you need to change every monster, but you can occasionally mix it up to get out of your own comfort zone, and to surprise veteran players.

For example, I once confronted my players with mummies that did not cause Mummyrot, but Searot. Similar, but different. My veteran players assumed that being touched by a mummy was bad, which still held true, but the effect of the disease was less deadly.

Oh I do, plenty of that happens too.

There seems to be a lot of hostility in this thread, but maybe I'm just perceiving it all wrong. I've read the entire thing, and I can see both viewpoints (well, there's more than two, but two basic directions), and I can certainly understand both. I don't think I'll ever conform to other beliefs than those I have, and I doubt I can convince others to see things my way either (in this thread, at least).

I'm not about to go into a huge debate about this, as Max, Elfcrusher, Lanefar, yourself and others are already engaged in the trenches, and because it is all getting a little redundant. I only posted to state what the majority of MY group enjoys and doesn't enjoy. We might be metagaming not knowing things at times, but we prefer that to metagaming knowing things and then having to deal with metagaming not knowing it afterwards, if that makes sense.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not about to go into a huge debate about this, as Max, Elfcrusher, Lanefar, yourself and others are already engaged in the trenches

Though we'd be much better off were those "trenches" a pub somewhere that had a table with all of us around it and numerous pints of beer on it.

Lanefan

 

[Ricochet]

Though we'd be much better off were those "trenches" a pub somewhere that had a table with all of us around it and numerous pints of beer on it.

Lanefan

Few would argue against THAT scenario.

 

[SilentRave]

Are you replying to individual responses in this thread? When i do that I like to use the "Reply With Quote" option so it's clear who i am talking to.

Omg... srsly I thought something was fishy with my answers XD... oh well, reply with quote it is!