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

[Maxperson]

All of them? Everything? Are you sure?

Yes. At no point in history did any human have an inspiration based on absolutely nothing in the world and about something he had no knowledge about. The human minds works on real things and can skip steps intuitively, but something from the world has to be present.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll cede the point that it is much easier to remain consistent when your definition of metagaming is "all metagaming that I don't like".

That has never been my definition.

 

[Shasarak]

I think that that player is probably stuck at a table where people are policing his thoughts and he's not putting much effort into appeasing them.

In other words:
1) He could be coming up with more creative rationales than "I just happen to try..."
2) And/or, because it would be easy for him to do that, the other people at the table could stop thought-policing him and just worry about what their own characters are thinking.

I would have imagined (heh) that coming up with an imaginative explanation for why your character would do something would be absolutely part of playing DnD.

 

[Corwin]

Yes. At no point in history did any human have an inspiration based on absolutely nothing in the world and about something he had no knowledge about. The human minds works on real things and can skip steps intuitively, but something from the world has to be present.

I really have no idea how to respond to this. But I do want to quote it, just in case, for posterity sake.

 

[Corwin]

That has never been my definition.

How is it inaccurate? How does your definition differ?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That has never been my definition.

No, but you clearly don't agree with my assertion that choosing not to act on player knowledge is metagaming as well since you repeatedly state that you won't play at a table where people metagame. So clearly your definition is different than mine.

My best attempt at what I think your definition of metagaming is that the character does not act on knowledge the player has, but has decided the character doesn't.

I don't think this is exactly how you would word it, but I think it describes your actual definition.

In order for you to determine what is OK for the player to know, you have to metagame. You have to make a decision, outside of the character and the in-world game, about what the character knows and doesn't. Much of this might occur during character generation, but a lot will happen during the course of the game.

But like so many things, in order for this discussion to be somewhat useful, it's sort of important for us to have some sort of idea of what we're debating. That is, a definition of what "evil" metagaming is, to differentiate it from all of the rest of metagaming that is a necessary part of a game like this. And your definition of "evil" metagaming will probably be different than a lot of the rest of us.

I feel like we've had this discussion before...

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would have imagined (heh) that coming up with an imaginative explanation for why your character would do something would be absolutely part of playing DnD.

Oh, yes, I agree. I think it's lame if the player keeps saying, "I just happen to..." when so much of the fun is coming up with a good reason. (Where "good" means "entertaining" more then "probable").

But his lack of imagination isn't grounds for labeling his actions 'cheating'.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes. At no point in history did any human have an inspiration based on absolutely nothing in the world and about something he had no knowledge about. The human minds works on real things and can skip steps intuitively, but something from the world has to be present.

I don't disagree with Max about this.

Where we differ is that I don't think we can objectively distinguish between "inspiration our characters would have gotten in-game" and "inspiration the player experienced".

There are a variety of psychology experiments in which subjects tend to pick the same results, and yet they all have rationales for why they made those choices. We make something up in order to explain our own subconscious to ourselves.

A related observation is that it's impossible to make a "random" choice among options without assistance. E.g., playing Rock, Paper, Scissors it's impossible to choose randomly. We're always going to base our choice on something, even if it's just an attempt to not choose our first instinct.

So, yes, if the new player decides to pick up a burning log and whack the rubbery green monster that appeared in the night, something inspired that decision. It wasn't random. But it could very well be something out-of-game, such as a recollection of Aragorn (that infamous metagamer) waving torches on Weathertop. And we simply can't determine what it was. The player's own subconscious may be lying to him about it, and inventing after-the-fact reasons.

So my question to Max stands: if there were no clues given in-game, and the newbie still grabs a burning log, does his behavior bother you? If so, why? And if not, how is its impact on others at the table sufficiently different from the case of the veteran doing the same thing, such that one spoils your fun and the other does not?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No, because it's not true.

Please explain to me how you calling me a "cheater" for "metagaming" when my character has performed an action that you would not stop a completely inexperienced and unknowledgeable player from having their character perform in the same circumstance is something other than using my knowledge against me?

And in a more generally directed statement, it's at this time that I would once again like to point out that some participants in this discussion keep insisting on calling certain actions "acting on player knowledge" even though the knowledge the player has is not required in any way for the character to perform the action in question.

It's like saying someone is "acting on player knowledge" because their character gets a weapon in hand before opening a door they don't know what is behind - the character is completely within the capability of doing so, and there are in-character reasons for the activity even if it is the first time such a thing has ever come up between back-story and game-play... but the DM believes the reason the player did that is because they know there are monsters on the other side of the door, and any attempt to explain that the decision is as in-character as a decision possibly can be is "where the player just invented a weak justification to metagame."

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, because it's not true.

How so? It certainly seems that a player with the knowledge is penalized compared to a player without the knowledge who happens to stumble upon the answer.

The player who knows that the troll is vulnerable to fire cannot have his character stumble upon that answer lest he be accused of metagaming. So in this case, his knowledge as a player is a detriment.

Can you give me a scenario where the player having such meta-knowledge would benefit his character given your table's take on metagaming? I'm having a hard time imagining such an instance.

Influence does not equal metagaming, though. A player whose character does not know about trolls and chooses to swing a sword is not acting on the player's knowledge. He's acting on the character's knowledge.

Metagaming is allowing out of game knowledge to influence the character's actions, no?

And what about in Aaron's example? The character was near fire...isn't having him go for his sword rather than the fire metagaming? It's the character being influenced by player knowledge. "I hit it with the flaming log from the fire pit...oh wait, no, my character wouldn't know about the fire vulnerability, so I guess I go for my sword instead." That's metagaming.

If a flaming brand is at hand it is perfectly reasonable for a character to use that to attack an enemy. Let's say it was a wolf instead of a troll. No one would bat an eye at a character trying to scare a wolf off with a firebrand. We've all seen it a million times. It is a perfectly reasonable action for a character to take.

But if the player is aware it's a troll, then it's no longer perfectly reasonable...now it's cheating.

Doesn't that seem a bit harsh to you?

Sure, but it doesn't have to be pure. It just has to not be metagaming.

Ha I meant "pure" as in "free of metagaming", so I'm not sure what you mean...

It's similar enough. The option to use player knowledge that the PC doesn't have is as absent as the wizard lacking the ability to cast divine magic. The option to be inspired by in game facts is as present for the experienced player as it is for the newbie.

No, it's very different. Mostly for reasons I've already stated in my last post, and also above in this one.

That's because you have a different definition of metagaming.

I don't really think it's our definitions that differ so much as our tolerance of it.

At some point my PC will realize none of his weapons will work, and if he has access to fire he will try it.

At what point? When is it okay to decide "all right...my character has come to the conclusion that perhaps fire will harm the creature more effectively"? Is it only once you've exhausted all other options? Is it after X number of rounds? Does the DM decide "okay enough's enough" on a whim?

All of these are still metagaming. You cannot unknow what you know. A player that knows the trick and playing a character who doesn't know the trick is fundamentally different than a player who doesn't know the trick playing a character who also doesn't know the trick. Would you agree with that?