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

[Maxperson]

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

There's also a lot of fun to be had in winning, but not being able to finish the creature, or losing and escaping, then setting off to find that information so you can come back and defeat the foe.

 

[robus]

It ruins the enjoyment for a lot of people.

With regard to my confusion above, could you give us an example of how a first encounter with trolls would play out at your table of seasoned players? When does fire become an acceptable (i.e. non-metagame) tool to use against the trolls? And how does a player know that the time is right?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

With regard to my confusion above, could you give us an example of how a first encounter with trolls would play out at your table of seasoned players? When does fire become an acceptable (i.e. non-metagame) tool to use against the trolls? And how does a player know that the time is right?

There's no hard and fast rule for when it's okay to try. Depending on circumstances, it could be round 1. Let's say that the fighter lost his sword somehow and the cleric gave him his weapon. Now an attack at night happens and the cleric with only healing spells is in trouble. Well, a fiery brand would be better than nothing so he grabs one and goes in to help his buddies. Maybe after the fight it keeps regenerating and they keep having to kill it again, so they try fire. Maybe something in-between. It's an intuitive thing.

 

[Caliburn101]

Few would argue against THAT scenario.

Yeah but a trip to the pub will be ruined if I don't know how every beer I'm gonna drink tastes before I drink it apparently! lmfao

 

[jasper]

I have yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument regarding what the actual negative effect would be, of me using metagame knowledge of the weakness of a monster in the game.

Suppose I don't have a 'cover argument' at all to explain why my character is attacking the troll with fire, or the skeleton with a blunt weapon. Suppose I am a filthy cheater, and I use my knowledge as a player to exploit the weakness of an enemy that I have fought a million times before.

What effect does this have on the game?

Well filthy cheater Imaculata it hurts some of other players who like play their newby pc pretend they don't know about trolls or other common d&d monsters.
Well filthy cheater Imaculata it changes the game up from the DM having to challenge the pcs and players to having to challenge filthy cheater Imculata.
Well filthy cheater okay enough of that. As DM if I am having to make changes to the monsters, encounters, and modules just to make you not use you metagame knowledge all or most of time. This is no longer fun for me. Even if I was just a player at the table and you constantly use metagame knowledge it would not be fun.
So now I have a choice "Do I want to play with MegaGame Knowledge Imculata?" Years ago I would grit my teeth and say play on. Now days. "No I will not play with green eggs and MegaGame Knowledge Imculata". If you are just a game friend. Bye. If you a friend, see at Taco Tuesday, Football Fridays but I will not be gaming with you.

 

[jasper]

Yeah but a trip to the pub will be ruined if I don't know how every beer I'm gonna drink tastes before I drink it apparently! lmfao

You hater. What about us AA members? How dare you enjoy beer with your D&D while I have drink coffee!

 

[robus]

There's no hard and fast rule for when it's okay to try. Depending on circumstances, it could be round 1. Let's say that the fighter lost his sword somehow and the cleric gave him his weapon. Now an attack at night happens and the cleric with only healing spells is in trouble. Well, a fiery brand would be better than nothing so he grabs one and goes in to help his buddies. Maybe after the fight it keeps regenerating and they keep having to kill it again, so they try fire. Maybe something in-between. It's an intuitive thing.

That's seems nice and collegial and probably works with a table that is comprised of a long-standing group of players that know and trust each other. But how does this approach work in say an AL game at your FLGS?

 

[iserith]

It trivialises the challenge, and without challenge, the game is dull and ultimately unsatisfying.

It actually just reduces the difficulty of the challenge. Challenge and difficulty aren't the same thing from a game design perspective. Even if you reduce the difficulty to very low (which I would argue isn't really the case when you know monster vulnerabilities), there is still challenge. As I explained to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] upthread, player skill and knowledge only affects difficulty and that can be offset by designing the challenge in a way that takes those skills into account. For example, you can change up the monster or create trade-offs and hard choices in the environment that make using that knowledge potentially costly or risky. If someone really does care about "metagaming," one would think he or she would avail themselves of these techniques.

By your logic on this issue, the GM could show the characters the adventure module, hand out stats of all the monsters and then pack up and go home.

I can honestly say that I personally don't know any players or GMs, nor have I known any that would agree that knowing everything in advance will nevertheless lead to a fun adventure.

Have you ever played a video game more than once? I don't play video games myself, but I know people that do and replaying the game seems to be a thing. From personal experience, I have had players play in my one-shots more than once to try out different builds or approaches to overcoming the challenges.

If there is no mystery in a story, the story fails to connect with people - it's a central tenet of drama, and roleplaying uses the rules of drama to deliver the fun. No struggle, no sense of achievement, no challenge, no fun.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if exploiting a troll's weakness, for example, completely wrecks all the other mystery in your story, then perhaps it's time to rethink how you design adventures.

 

[Caliburn101]

It actually just reduces the difficulty of the challenge. Challenge and difficulty aren't the same thing from a game design perspective. Even if you reduce the difficulty to very low (which I would argue isn't really the case when you know monster vulnerabilities), there is still challenge. As I explained to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] upthread, player skill and knowledge only affects difficulty and that can be offset by designing the challenge in a way that takes those skills into account. For example, you can change up the monster or create trade-offs and hard choices in the environment that make using that knowledge potentially costly or risky. If someone really does care about "metagaming," one would think he or she would avail themselves of these techniques.



Have you ever played a video game more than once? I don't play video games myself, but I know people that do and replaying the game seems to be a thing. From personal experience, I have had players play in my one-shots more than once to try out different builds or approaches to overcoming the challenges.



I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if exploiting a troll's weakness, for example, completely wrecks all the other mystery in your story, then perhaps it's time to rethink how you design adventures.

I use a very simple and accessible example and you act like my entire argument is simple.

*wags finger*