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

[Maxperson]

And to hammer the point home even further:

Maybe my character does not want to kill the wolf or troll, and so I choose the burning log over the longsword, because it is my character's goal to drive the creature away, not to kill it. Maybe my character assumes the creature would be more afraid of fire, than of a longsword (as many animals are).

In a game where you can wound creatures and not kill them, or do non-lethal damage with a sword, or just not strike a killing blow, that excuse falls flat.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

So, I addressed this before, and will reiterate it in this way.

No one seriously argues that there cannot be any metagaming. For the simple reason that this is a game, with rules, and the player is aware of that. But the argument that because this is a game, with rules, therefore all metagaming is inherently acceptable is one of those arguments that is too clever by half, and ends up with people stating (as they did earlier in the thread) that it is perfectly acceptable to read a module, or the DMs notes, ahead of time, and act on that information. Something which is closer to what most people would purely call "cheating," as opposed to mere "metagaming."

This would appear to be a serious statement that they don't metagame:

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.

Which is to say that reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't work in either direction. I think that many people reasonably base their decisions on how the table plays, and that the "metagamer" has a particular valence with many tables as someone who uses information not known to the character to impart an advantage to their character. Why would I say this? Because this is a not uncommon definition-

"We all metagame once in a while. After all, even if our characters don't know exactly what that orb with the eyes is, they've got the feeling that it's dangerous and probably shouldn't be charged head-on. But this guy seems to have read (and memorized) all the monster manuals and the published adventures, and is impossible to catch off guard. Once he sees that beast charging him, he immediately breaks out the creature's one weakness."
From TV Tropes. See also-

"It should probably be noted that the term "metagame" is also used pejoratively when it comes to Tabletop Games and other roleplaying games that expect players not to jump In and Out of Character. Here, using The Metagame is often considered somewhat akin to cheating, since it's information that the player's character couldn't possibly know (since the character doesn't know he's in a game), and shouldn't be making use of."
From "metagame" in TV Tropes.

"In role-playing games, metagaming is an "out of character" action where a player's character makes use of knowledge that the player is aware of but that the character is not meant to be aware of. Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story."
Wikipedia

You can look here for tips on how to "solve" metagaming-
https://roleplayingtips.com/gm-techniques/how-do-you-prevent-metagaming/

From all geeks rejoice:
"The biggest reason this term gets such a bad reputation is that it generally causes issues for the DM while also killing the immersion for the other players."

So this is an unusual debate in the sense that some people are not just trying to offer their solutions for metagaming (which can include ignoring metagaming and/or offering post-hoc narrative justifications), but imposing their belief that metagaming is everyone else's problem exception for the metagamer. Which seems contrary to the vast majority of experience I have had, and is in accord with the information and advice I can find elsewhere.

Reasonable debates can be had about the way everyone needs to accept and use the metagame (for example, at most tables, the party tends to stick together and help each other, because the PLAYERS want to have a fun and cooperative game). There are reasonable debates about the extent of character knowledge (in your world, how common is the "trolls and fire" thing). There are reasonable discussions that can be had over the best way to handle metagaming, and how individual tables chose to deal with it; to extremes would be Aaron's (permissive) and Max's (not permissive).

But fundamentally, people are talking past each other, as [MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] points out.

Which is why I think it's important to narrow down the definition and focus of the discussion. Or at least identify which definition we're dealing with in individual discussions within the thread. When I see a quote that says "I never metagame" then clearly we are not in agreement about what metagaming is. Acknowledging that can go a long way to stop talking past each other.

Cheating is a more serious term to me. I can see how some people can qualify using fire against a troll because you read it in the MM as a form of cheating, but I think that one of the keys to defining cheating is intent. And I'm very reluctant to presume what anybody's intention is, other than good.

I agree that Max's definition is a common way to define metagaming. The problem is, at least in my experience, that it's a vague definition that is interpreted by different people differently. The wide range of valid answers to the troll/fire thing is a good example. Which goes back to the question I asked:

"How do you decide what knowledge the character does/doesn't have?"

Because if you are the type of player that is fairly restrictive in what you think the character should know, then you're likely to find that at a lot of tables, at the very least, somebody will do something you don't like. That might just bug you, and you might remain silent. On the other hand, you might speak up. Not only do I find that disruptive, but it breaks immersion far more than the "metagaming" offense itself. A better approach is to discuss it outside of game time, but still needs to be determined in some manner.

So I think it's pretty important for the folks at a given table to be on the same page.

Johnn Four's compilation on "solving" metagaming is really focusing on solving min-maxing/optimizing/munchkinizing and while that's another type of metagaming, it's not the issue that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is discussing here. I'm not even sure he would consider that metagaming.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

I actually prefer that to prodding or suggestions from me (the DM) because anything I say takes on a greater importance. "Oh, if the DM points that out, it must be a big deal."

That's the sort of "metagame thinking" the DMG advises against.

In the end, this seems to me about values. Some think it an unethical thing to do no matter how inconsistent or arbitrary their methods seem to just about anyone else. I think it's also about identity - some identify as being ethical by running or playing in games this way. I see this in the form of virtue signaling when I run pickup groups or play in pickup groups. An application might say "I'm not a metagamer..." or during play a fellow player might say "I don't want to metagame here, but..."

When people feel like their values are under attack, they will in my experience defend them to the death. We cannot expect to change the minds of people who have played this way for 30 years and have made it part of their identity. What we can hope for is that lurkers reading the exchanges will come to the conclusion some of us have already reached, that is, it's not worth caring about or, if you do care about it on some level, there are ways to obviate or mitigate its impact on the game from the DM's side of the screen.

 

[Guest 6801328]

There would still be an in game reason for it, such as the newbies weapon not being immediately at hand.

Just to clarify, do you mean that it has been previously established that his weapon is not at hand, or that he offers it, after the fact, as a rationale for making that decision?

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.

You're still not answering the question, which I will re-phrase:
1) The newbie picks up a burning log to hit this creature
2) It just happens to be exactly the right thing to do
3) There has been zero in-game information that would suggest using fire*
4) When asked why, he says "Because I think a burning log would make a great weapon! Why...is that against the rules?"

Do you let him do it? Or is he a metagamer?

*You keep changing the situation by adding in this "in-game information", but I'm asking what happens without it.

 

[iserith]

Cheating is the default state unless changed. That's why the 5e DMG directs DMs to discourage and curb that sort of behavior. However if it is allowed in your game, it has changed and it's no longer cheating. It's no different than if your DM allows you to alter die rolls after they happen. That's cheating, too, unless it's allowed. Then it's not cheating. I would never consider someone who altered die rolls after they happened a cheater if they were doing it in a game where it was allowed.

The DMG definitely does not support the sort of take on "metagaming" you have. Anyone reading it can see that. It very specifically calls out "metagame thinking" as a thing to avoid so that players don't end up with a bad play experience as a result (getting their characters killed or wasting session time). It most definitely does not say it's cheating to engage in "metagame thinking." What's more, it specifically says how the DM can curb this sort of thinking and - surprise - it's about how the DM can change up challenges. Which is exactly what I've been saying to a great deal of "I shouldn't have to do that - it's the players who are wrong!"

There's nothing more to read into this very short section of the DMG. Play how you want, but I don't think you can claim that your's is the default way with the DMG as proof.

If anyone cares to read this section to see for themselves, it's on page 235. Interestingly, it's almost verbatim what the D&D 4e DMG says.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It would be just as nonsensical for the PC to pick up the firebrand to use against the ogre. It couldn't be metagaming, though, since no player knowledge was being used as the reason behind the nonsensical behavior.

I think picking up the firebrand to use as a weapon in nearly any circumstance to be nonsensical. It's not a weapon. Using it to keep wolves at bay is a defense, not an attack, and doesn't eliminate the wolves. The hope is that they'll go away. It's usually a delaying tactic, that works well when coupled with ranged attacks because then the wolves probably will go away to find something easier to eat for dinner.

If you were attacking a 10' tall monster, and found that your sword was not an effective weapon, I don't think there's any valid reason why a person you pick up a firebrand to attempt to use as a weapon. If you had no weapon at all, perhaps. But if the, well, weapon, isn't doing the trick, then picking up a non-weapon certainly isn't going to be my next choice. My next choice would be to run away. Every time. Then go tell the story about the monster that is unkillable and everybody will tell you that you're stupid and you should have listened to the stories you've been hearing for the last 20 years.

It's even more absurd with a lycanthrope. You certainly won't have a silver weapon with you, because you didn't know better (and in my campaign, it's an arrow, or a dagger at best, a silver sword makes a very expensive and crappy sword). No, the best you could probably manage is "My sword isn't working, hmm, I'll start throwing silver pieces at it to see if that helps."

If you have magic, and fire-based magic is an option, then you probably will figure things out. But I can't think of any circumstance where I would be carrying an actual weapon and decide that since the actual weapon didn't work, I'll try something else that's not a weapon.

And that's part of the problem that I eventually had with this sort of approach. It gets silly. OK, the sword isn't working. I'll shove the creature and try to knock it down. Oh, a critical! Lucky shot, you knock it prone and it lands in the fire. It roars in pain and leaps up, and somehow you notice that this time it's wounds aren't healing themselves.

10-foot monster and sword isn't working? Run away.

The type of metagaming I don't care for is that in most cases, the characters don't act like people. If they do something wrong in town and confronted by the authorities, they attack the guards. To kill. To create any sort of scene where they'll act like normal people and surrender, you have to throw like 20 or 30 guards at them.

The fact that the PCs tend to attack to kill just about everything is absurd in my mind. As is the alarmingly low rate that PCs run away. The 5-minute work day is another thing that I see come up again and again, and that's a more grievous form of metagaming to me. We also eliminated it simply by reminding the players that the characters are people. People are creatures of habit. If they like to get up in the morning and eat breakfast, then they'll continue to do that even if they are adventuring. They will take a break every couple of hours, and stop for lunch when it's lunch. Why would they still be adventuring at midnight, or 2:00 in the morning. Heck, anything past 5:00 is overtime. "I can still kill the orcs and take their treasure tomorrow. I'm tired and hungry. I'm setting up camp right here. If you want to continue, go ahead, I'll catch up later."

 

[Corwin]

In a game where you can wound creatures and not kill them, or do non-lethal damage with a sword, or just not strike a killing blow, that excuse falls flat.

That is one of the cheesiest, metagaming-based reasonings I've seen in a while. Well done!

 

[Bawylie]

That's the sort of "metagame thinking" the DMG advises against.

In the end, this seems to me about values. Some think it an unethical thing to do no matter how inconsistent or arbitrary their methods seem to just about anyone else. I think it's also about identity - some identify as being ethical by running or playing in games this way. I see this in the form of virtue signaling when I run pickup groups or play in pickup groups. An application might say "I'm not a metagamer..." or during play a fellow player might say "I don't want to metagame here, but..."

When people feel like their values are under attack, they will in my experience defend them to the death. We cannot expect to change the minds of people who have played this way for 30 years and have made it part of their identity. What we can hope for is that lurkers reading the exchanges will come to the conclusion some of us have already reached, that is, it's not worth caring about or, if you do care about it on some level, there are ways to obviate or mitigate its impact on the game from the DM's side of the screen.

I think if you are interested in discussing the issue with someone (for the benefit of lurkers or not), it's probably very important to understand the values that person espouses. Because, as you've indicated, an attack on values feels like an attack on identity. And that sort of feeling is very likely the end of a productive discussion.

But forums aren't always helpful in this regard anyway. We get caught up a lot in legalistic language trying to frame arguments with iron clad logic or undermine arguments with any weak link, and end up ignoring the actual point for the form of the argument.

That's waffle, to me.

Anyway, what value does "Im not a metagamer" express? And does that overlap with "I'm a simulationist" at all?


-Brad

 

[Imaculata]

In a game where you can wound creatures and not kill them, or do non-lethal damage with a sword, or just not strike a killing blow, that excuse falls flat.

Are you saying that if I choose to scare a bunch of wolves away with a burning log, that is an invalid reason for my action, because the game has a none-lethal damage mechanic?

The reason that it's a cooperative game is that the PCs are together in a group. If a PC goes off on his own, that PC is no longer part of a cooperative game and is in a solo game until the PC returns.

Maybe in your games. Not in mine. In my games, the game is always cooperative, regardless of whether the players go off on their own, or are together. One of the most important things to me, is that the players are always working towards a common goal. They may have their own private agenda occasionally. But when it comes down to it, they are a team. They are always a team.

The entire group gets to participate in the thinking process when together, yes. They are interfering in the thinking process when their PC isn't present at the puzzle or situation.

Only if the player considers it interfering. If the whole group agrees that this is an acceptable way to play the game, it is not an interference.

That's fine. You've altered your game to allow this. It's not the default way the game works, though.

I don't think you are the right arbiter of what the default way to play the game is, as is evident by how often you get in discussions like this with other posters.

I don't think you should assume things like that. I dislike it as well, but I've played in games where it was allowed and it was a detriment to my enjoyment.

Did your group agree before hand that shared information would be okay?

That's the fault of the DM. In an interesting game, the other players watch and listen to what the solo PC is doing and encountering.

Not all scenes in a campaign are going to be edge-of-your-seat exciting, no matter how good the DM. But if the players whose characters aren't present are still able to join in in some way, that objectively makes it more interesting for those players. Because they have something to do, other than waiting.

It's not cool to spoil things for other players.

You seem to be presuming intentional malice. But what if the group agreed in their session 0 that shared information would be fine? What if everyone is on the same page?