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

[Maxperson]

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.

That's true.

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.

No I don't have to metagame. I don't have to bring a single bit of knowledge into the game world and act on it. I have to act only on what knowledge the character has, which is not metagaming. Metagaming is having a character act upon knowledge that it does not have.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

There would still be an in game reason for it, such as the newbies weapon not being immediately at hand. I've played with dozens and dozens of new players over the years and they've never abandoned their main weapon for something much worse. There is nothing a newbie will come up with that a veteran cannot. It just has to be based in the game and not be metagaming.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

I didn't call you a cheater. You presented a flowery and weak justification for metagaming in your example. In MY game it would be cheating. In your game it wouldn't be.

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 doesn't matter whether player knowledge is required or not. It matters that player knowledge is what is behind the "creative" solution to handing that knowledge to the PC when the PC doesn't know it. Anyone can come up with a justification for knowing literally anything. The player doesn't have the right to just announce that his PC knows everything like that.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sure he can. It just has to be based entirely on in-game events.

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.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here.

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?

No. The sword is far more effective than an unwieldy and weak stick with a bit of fire.

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.

The bolded part makes it acting on the characters knowledge, not the players knowledge. So no, it wouldn't be 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.

I've never seen it tried in D&D. D&D wolves are not afraid of fire in any case. A D&D character feeling threatened by wolves, and who was trained with a sword, wouldn't grab a firebrand.

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

I mean that player knowledge influence =/= metagaming. If I know that trolls are weak to fire, but my PC doesn't and I think, "My PC doesn't know about this so I'm going to use his sword.", player knowledge touched that decision, but the act was one that is 100% based on character knowledge, not player knowledge. It was impure, but not metagaming.

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

No option = no option.

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

It doesn't seem that way. If you think that deciding not to use fire based on the character not knowing about a troll's weakness is metagaming, then your definition is absolutely different.

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?

When it's right. The player will know. It could be round 1, or it could be never. It's entirely based on circumstances and all the tens of thousands of different possible circumstances can't be conveyed here in this thread.

Does the DM decide "okay enough's enough" on a whim?

I don't decide things 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?

Slightly different, but only in the knowledge. In the actions, there is no difference.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I didn't call you a cheater.

You said a thing I did was metagaming.
You said metagaming is cheating.
That is calling me a cheater.

It doesn't matter whether player knowledge is required or not. It matters that player knowledge is what is behind the "creative" solution to handing that knowledge to the PC when the PC doesn't know it. Anyone can come up with a justification for knowing literally anything. The player doesn't have the right to just announce that his PC knows everything like that.

I did not announce my PC knowing anything (and certainly not "everything"). I had my character act as I believe he would given his circumstance of a completely unknown monster attacking while he wasn't entirely ready for a fight, which was to use the nearest available weapon to defend himself.

You keep misstating what happened by insisting that I made the PC know something he didn't. I specifically decided the character didn't know, and did what was entirely reasonable given not knowing.

And with the bold portion above, you appear to be doing just as I have previously said you are; thought policing players. You are entirely distracted by trying to determine, or pretend you know, what the player was thinking and have created a situation in which an experienced player trying to role-play any character concept besides an all-knowing sage at your table appears to involve a whole lot of "I do what is clearly the wrong thing again. How many more wasted actions until I'm allowed to try something that might actually work?"

Lastly, I'd like you to stop and think about a particular idea for a moment: In a case where the character has used fire as a weapon in 100% of all known cases that it was an option, you declared that action invalid and gave your reason as being a matter of "consistency". Same with the fictional case I made up of the character that is acting like the old lady is a witch that stole their friend, one time out of a possible one time that is what the character did, and you brought in to question whether that was in keeping with established behavior patterns.

Note: I'm not saying 1 time out of 1 opportunity is enough information to show that it is actually a consistent pattern. Quite the opposite, in fact; I'm saying that 1 time out of 1 chance is not even remotely enough information to judge a pattern. Acting like the single examples of a behavior can be judged with certainty as being metagaming is like saying you can tell me what color of shirt I wore yesterday, or will wear tomorrow, knowing nothing more than that I put on a grey shirt when I got out of the shower just a bit ago.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It just has to be based entirely on in-game events.

This is at odds with you calling me a "metagamer" for the way I acted in the fighter/troll example.

No. The sword is far more effective than an unwieldy and weak stick with a bit of fire.

Not a determination the character can make given the character's knowledge. So it is, by your chosen definition, metagaming to not use the less effective weapon because using the sword is acting upon the player's knowledge of damage expressions.

The bolded part makes it acting on the characters knowledge, not the players knowledge. So no, it wouldn't be metagaming.

This is also at odds with you calling me a "metagamer" for the way I acted in the fighter/troll example. I acted on the character's knowledge, not mine.

A D&D character feeling threatened by wolves, and who was trained with a sword, wouldn't grab a firebrand.

That is one-true-way thinking, Max.

When it's right. The player will know. It could be round 1...

Unless that player is me, evidently.

 

[Maxperson]

You said a thing I did was metagaming.
You said metagaming is cheating.
That is calling me a cheater.

Since I know that you can read, you are deliberately leaving out this... "I said that it's not cheating if the DM allows it." Since you are not in my game, and you seem to allow and play with people who are allow it, I cannot be calling you a cheater.

And with the bold portion above, you appear to be doing just as I have previously said you are; thought policing players. You are entirely distracted by trying to determine, or pretend you know, what the player was thinking and have created a situation in which an experienced player trying to role-play any character concept besides an all-knowing sage at your table appears to involve a whole lot of "I do what is clearly the wrong thing again. How many more wasted actions until I'm allowed to try something that might actually work?"

You are wrong. I have no need to police players who don't metagame.

Lastly, I'd like you to stop and think about a particular idea for a moment: In a case where the character has used fire as a weapon in 100% of all known cases that it was an option, you declared that action invalid and gave your reason as being a matter of "consistency".

If by invalid, you mean valid, then sure. Someone who uses fire in every fight would have no problems using fire against trolls.

Same with the fictional case I made up of the character that is acting like the old lady is a witch that stole their friend, one time out of a possible one time that is what the character did, and you brought in to question whether that was in keeping with established behavior patterns.

It was a thinly veiled attempt to metagame. You would not have done that had you not known about the trapdoor and rogue falling in.

 

[Maxperson]

Not a determination the character can make given the character's knowledge. So it is, by your chosen definition, metagaming to not use the less effective weapon because using the sword is acting upon the player's knowledge of damage expressions.

It absolutely is a determination that the character can make given the character's knowledge. A sword is more effective than a weak stick with a bit of fire.

That is one-true-way thinking, Max.

No it isn't. It's common sense. A D&D character with any knowledge of D&D wolves would know that they aren't afraid of fire. A D&D character with no knowledge of wolves would be more likely to use the much more effective sword.

 

[Ricochet]

Regarding the discussion of attacking creatures (silver on werewolves, maces on skeletons, fire on trolls), I don't really get into the entire "make-belief trial and error" on common D&D monsters (UNLESS it might be interesting for the players to do so as a way to grow their characters personalities etc.!). My problem is when a player knows the entire monster book by heart, and verbally declares everything in the stat block whenever something new is encountered, thus spoiling the "oh crud!" or "oh yay!" reactions that learning about /interacting with the monster would provide. It robs the rest of the group's players of interesting experiences, imo. Try as they might to simply play their characters with whatever knowledge the player has chosen the character to have, they will be subconsciously influenced by the spoilers (for lack of a better word) they just got.

Same thing when going to a movie. If I sit down and someone tells me the ending just as the movie starts, I will have it in the back of my mind. Try as I might I to enjoy the movie, the surprise and wonder of the ending is pretty much taken from me. This won't matter to some people, but at least at my table, it matters to 5 out of 6 players, so after a chat, the player who kept deliberately revealing statblocks/spoilers stopped doing it, and now the rest of the group get to discover things slightly more organically. The player who enjoys knowing everything still influences the others somewhat, because he/she will still deal with the monster according to its weaknesses and strengths, but at least it is much more veiled now, and easier for the rest of the group to ignore.

A) "Oh, Padikaa just shouted watch out for the tornado-spell that this ridiculously uncommon creature conjures when it raises its left eyebrow. I better run too!"
B) "Oh, Padikaa is running away all of a sudden just because that ridiculously uncommon creature raised its eyebrow? Oh well. I attack with my sword!"

Some people prefer A, others B. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but it's easier for people who prefer B to play it like they enjoy when people enjoying A hold a little bit back on what they share with them. Player A types can still know everything if that is what they enjoy, they just don't have to spoil it for the rest.

Interesting stuff though. I am still enjoying reading this thread, which is rare for such a long one!

 

[Lanefan]

I agree that it can seem "very realistic." But aside from the time it takes to report back, which was less of an issue when my sessions were 6-8 hours long instead of 2-4, there were too many times when important information was missed. Which means I either needed to set up more potential clues, or I had to fill in some information for them

Or you could just let them get it wrong and carry on! If they blow it, they blow it...and if they end up wandering around with no real clue why they are there or what they are doing then so be it. And even if they end up abandoning the adventure because they don't know what to do next, again so be it. Ironically, it comes down to characters operating on the information they have; only this time they have less than they otherwise might rather than more.

Sometimes major parts of intended storylines have to be tossed or redesigned due to events like this...part of the joy of DMing.

Lanefan