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

[Guest 6801328]

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

"Then you've agreed to cheat."

Amirite, Max?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

No. You're missing my point. A player who's totally unaware of the fire vulnerability may actually decide to use fire without any in-game cues. It could just happen because hitting something with fire is a perfectly valid form of attack pretty much always.

So the player who knows the trick is incapable of having his character, without any in game cues, decide to attack with fire.

Hence, his knowledge is a detriment. It limits what he is allowed to do.

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

You said it was untrue that you punish players for their knowledge but do not reward them. See my example immediately above. Now, please give me an example where you reward players based on their knowledge.

To me, it seems that being an experienced player in your game always results in a reduction in the options available. Explain to me how that's not the case. Give me an opposing example.

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

Well, you've added in some adjectives to swing things in your favor. Who says it must be "unwieldy" or "weak"? I think the fact that it was immediately at hand may be a far more important factor for the character, no? Wouldn't immediacy be the most important factor in such a scenario? Especially since the character would have no knowledge of initiative, turns, hit points, and so forth.

Instead, you're having the character think that rather than a weapon at hand, it would make more sense to drop that weapon, and draw another to make an attack....and this is because the character assumes the monster won't eat his face while he does that? I suppose the monster would say "no, no...it's your turn and you get a free item interaction which allows you to draw your sword at no cost....and dropping that torch is most likely a free action unless your DM is a jerk.....go ahead".

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

But the character's first instance might be to attack it with what's at hand.....the decision not to do so, and to instead go for the sword, is entirely based on the player's knowledge. That knowledge being the comparative damage outputs of the weapons, and also the character's ignorance.

Your view of metagaming does not allow for the full range of behaviors available to characters. It actively limits the choices because some choices are deemed cheating.

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.

Well I am sorry for that. Wolves are afraid of fire....I would think most DMs would incorporate that into their game. I'm sure that some DMs have a pack of wolves simply charge the PCs until they are all killed.....I guess those are D&D wolves? Suicidal bags of HP with no concern for their own well being.

I would think that in an immersive game, there would be no distinction between "wolves" and "D&D wolves".

No option = no option.

That's not the situation, though. The action in question is perfectly within the character's options and ability. It is an option. Let's say the monster was an ogre and not a troll....then it is an option.

Therefore, your comparison is false.

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.

I don't think it is, really. My view is that metagaming is occurring no matter what in that instance.

Let's look at it through the lens of a movie or a book rather than a game. Characters don't always take the "best" available action in fiction. Sometimes, they make "suboptimal" choices. So a character preparing a campfire who is surprised by the sudden appearance of a slobbering fanged monstrosity next to him is very likely to grab what's at hand and use it to try and fend the creature off.

The fact that you expect the character to not behave in a way that would actually make sense but instead default to always taking the most mathematically beneficial action based on the mechanics of the game....that's what makes it metagaming. Such decision making relies entirely upon the game mechanics.

This is why I would consider allowing the player a small level of authorship to decide either "my character grabs what's closest and tries to swat the thing away" OR "my character thinks that thing's a troll, and he's heard that trolls can be hurt by little but fire" far more acceptable.

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.

That certainly doesn't seem to match your other comments, though. Does the player get to decide himself? Does he need the DM's approval? What happens when the player and DM disagree on when the "right" time is? [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION]'s example was deemed metagaming in your eyes. Why, if such a decision can be made in round 1?

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

No...the available actions are different. One can attack with fire and it would be like "wow, you really lucked into that" and another would attack with fire and it would be like "you filthy cheater, get the hell away from my table".

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.

All of this relies so much upon the character behaving based on out-of-game knowledge that it's pretty remarkable.

Why would any sane person want a fight if the possibility to avoid the fight by brandishing fire existed? "You mean if I wave this flaming log at those gathering wolves, they may run off....or I can draw my sword and kill them, but probably get bitten a few times? I'll go for the bites." It's bonkers.

And why are "D&D wolves" not afraid of fire? Because there's no mechanical expression of that in their stat block?

If the intent is just to keep the wolves at bay, sure. If the intent is to kill them, or hurt them badly enough that they look for another campfire to bother, then a sword or crossbow really does make more sense.

Same is true if the campfire disturber is a troll, or an orc, or a bear, or whatever*.

If the characters were out hunting, maybe....for furs or meat or what have you. But if they are simply camping, and the wolves threaten their camp....why would any characters want to kill them unless it was unavoidable? Wouldn't driving them off be far preferable?

And I agree that bows or crossbows would be the first logical weapon of choice. Keep them at a distance, if possible.

This is a valid question. Dice can be the answer:

Character thinking on the fly after a pretty good perception check: "OK. My sword chops it up but it heals from that. Genevieve's mace - same thing, it looks like. Same with Calliandre's force bolts, and Khozora's crossbow bolts. What else have we got? Hmmm...we haven't tried bare wood yet...even the bolts are tipped with stone. Haven't tried fire. Haven't tried water...hey, maybe they melt! Haven't tried separating the pieces yet, or burying them. Wait - that acid spell Calliandre hit it with - that's not healing!" <speaks out loud> "Guys! Do we have more acid?"

Right there are 5 options plus the acid (but how many parties carry jars of spare acid around with them?) - on being told we don't have any acid I'd just roll a d5 to see what I try next. Process of elimination and random roll will get me there in the end.

Yeah, that's a way it could be handled. Of course, you included an instance of them using an effective attack, so I would think once that happened, all characters would see the effect and then could act accordingly.

But absent the acid spell....all of that seems like a really convoluted way of arriving at the inevitable conclusion.

Just a few sessions ago, I played a character whose party was indeed attacked by wolves at night. We had a campfire going, so I grabbed a burning log and swung it at the wolves to drive them off. And the DM ruled that they were afraid.

This is because as a player I know animals are afraid of fire, and so it is reasonable to assume my character might draw the same conclusion. And apparently the DM felt the same way, and ruled it effective. So yeah, there you go, a very recent example from an actual session I played.

Yeah, I've seen this kind of thing a lot. I've been playing that way so long that it really seems odd to me not to play that way, with the NPCs and creatures actually having goals and a sense of self-preservation, and the DM having them behave accordingly. Most creatures that are looking for a meal aren't willing to die for the meal.

I mean, if my turkey sandwich clubbed me in the head with a stick, I'd run the hell away and look for something else to eat.

In my most recent game, I was playing a level 2 barbarian and our party was exiting a narrow cave when we heard something outside the cave. It turned out to be a dire boar...far too wide to get into the cave. I proposed simply waiting until the boar left rather than rushing out of the cave to fight it. One of my fellow players looked at me as if I had said the most insane thing ever. But the way I play that character is to avoid fighting at all costs when possible....because people die in fights, and he doesn't want to die.

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.

So the characters are allowed to know that they can simply choose to knock an enemy out rather than kill? Do they know that only applies to melee attacks and not ranged attacks?

And in the case of the troll, I suppose that they wouldn't know that such a decision would result in the troll simply regaining consciousness on its turn, right? Because how would they know that since it requires player knowledge?

 

[Corwin]

Well, you've added in some adjectives to swing things in your favor. Who says it must be "unwieldy" or "weak"? I think the fact that it was immediately at hand may be a far more important factor for the character, no? Wouldn't immediacy be the most important factor in such a scenario? Especially since the character would have no knowledge of initiative, turns, hit points, and so forth.

Instead, you're having the character think that rather than a weapon at hand, it would make more sense to drop that weapon, and draw another to make an attack....and this is because the character assumes the monster won't eat his face while he does that? I suppose the monster would say "no, no...it's your turn and you get a free item interaction which allows you to draw your sword at no cost....and dropping that torch is most likely a free action unless your DM is a jerk.....go ahead".

I concur. In fact, this sort of identifies some of those who are arguing against metagaming as being the guiltiest of metagaming. Only a metagamer steps out of the immersive roleplaying moment to consider first the game mechanics he can exploit. Such metagame factors as non-lethal attacks with weapons, damage die comparisons, who goes when in the initiative order, free object interactions, OAs, movement rates, etc. Rather than just allowing the hero to take action, in the moment, based on the immediacy of the scene as it unfolds. I prefer to role-play, rather than roll-play. I'd much rather a player give me a colorful, entertaining narrative as to why he is wielding a burning log at the drooling, green monster, as opposed to having him break down the math and rules justifications surrounding why he's "better off" getting to his sword. Cuz mechanics. Yuck. Filthy metagaming.

 

[iserith]

I mean, if my turkey sandwich clubbed me in the head with a stick, I'd run the hell away and look for something else to eat.

Mmm... turkey club sandwich...

 

[Bacon Bits]

Here's my take on players using knowledge of the monster manual.

Go up to someone that you know has never once played D&D. Ask them the questions below. I've ordered them from the most likely to be answered to the least.

1. How do you fight a zombie? Do they have any weaknesses?
2. How do you fight a vampire? Do they have any weaknesses?
3. How do you fight a werewolf? Do they have any weaknesses?
4. How do you fight a demon? Do they have any weaknesses?
5. How do you fight a leprechaun, fairy, or sprite? Do they have any weaknesses?

You should get some answers:

1. Destroy the head. Don't get bitten.
2. Crosses and garlic repel them. They can't enter a home uninvited. They don't cast a reflection. To kill them, you drive a stake through the heart. Sunlight kills them.
3. Silver.
4. Crosses, holy water, and prayer.
5. Iron, salt, silver. Tricking them or learning their name like Rumpelstiltskin.

This is all fairly common knowledge, even though none of these creatures actually exists in our world. Our survival does not depend on this information.

Now, yes, if we look at things like old wives' tales and all the different theories for causes for diseases (four humors, miasma, divine punishment, getting cold, etc.), or all the superstitions that have been passed down over the years, there is a lot of false information out there, too. However, in much of it are grains of truth. We don't remember them because the natural cures and home remedies that were proven to work became "medicine."

How should this work in D&D?

The best thing to do is to assume that the characters (PCs and NPCs) in the campaign have had access or could get access to what's in the monster entries through books, lore, fables, etc. Assume that he Monster Manual is, in many ways, the collection of all the stories, myths, legends, and lore for all the monsters within it instead of just factual game mechanics. The more common the creature, the more likely that what's in the book is correct simply because the creature has been encountered and documented more often. That means that someone, somewhere encountered an Efreet before, survived, and wrote down what happened to him. He wrote something like, "The Efreet created a mighty wall of flame that surrounded the camp and barred our escape," and that's why it says, "Wall of fire 1/day" under Efreet. However, that might not be the actual ability that Efreeti have. It might be similar, but maybe it's more or less powerful, or maybe can mimic several effects. As a DM when I see "wall of fire 1/day," I see, "1/day creates a fire effect equivalent to a 4th level spell." That might be anything. Or maybe wall of fire is just what that particular Efreet could do.

When players invariably say, "Hey, Efreeti can't cast fireball!" you just look at them and say, "Indeed, you've never read of nor heard tales of any Efreet capable of throwing around fire in such a destructive manner. Nevertheless, that's exactly what happens."

Similarly, when they encounter something that fits the description for a "troll," they can pull out fire or acid to help deal with the creature because that's what the legends they've heard suggest works. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe what they've encountered isn't what they think they've encountered.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

Fire kills lots of stuff. You can kill an ogre with a burning stick as quickly as you can kill a troll. They both end up dead, and not coming back. Works in both cases. But you are only a metagamer when you use that tactic on a troll. Feel free to attack every ogre you see with a torch.

Its like I always say: You can tell if its a vampire by staking it through the heart. If it dies, it was clearly a vampire!

 

[iserith]

Similarly, when they encounter something that fits the description for a "troll," they can pull out fire or acid to help deal with the creature because that's what the legends they've heard suggest works. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe what they've encountered isn't what they think they've encountered.

I'd also add that this is a good opportunity to telegraph the traits, weaknesses, or strengths when describing the environment. The modified troll, for example, snatches that burning log and extinguishes it on its tongue. How badass is that? It also signals to the players that this troll isn't affected by fire in the same way as they might expect and they best not rely on their "metagame thinking" else it might do them a disservice. (Which is what the DMG advises.) It's a good approach in my view even with unmodified monsters as it creates the pretext for the characters to act on what they observe. If the troll makes a special, noticeable effort to move around the campfire or otherwise avoid it, it's quite reasonable for the character to believe it's afraid of fire and to use it against the troll at the next availability opportunity.

So, again, this is just another technique that corrects the "problem" on the DM's side of the table.

Good post. I like your approach of the MM being a collection of fairy tales and stories.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The happy ending to this thread is when one of Max's players posts and says, "Yeah, Max takes this stuff really seriously, so we all pretend to not metagame."

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

For someone who has an (admirably) detached, generous, and serene attitude about players' motivations in declaring actions, your attitude toward Max's motivations in expressing his opinions in this forum seems to gravitate to the other extreme.

I give him as much of the same generous and serene attitude I give everyone else as he will allow me. Perhaps the following will illuminate exactly why it is that the amount of that generosity and serenity seems so low as to be the opposite of those things:

Cheating is the default state unless changed. That's why the 5e DMG directs DMs to discourage and curb that sort of behavior.

He has just declared his own definition of metagaming as being the same as the 5th edition DMG's definition, which is factually untrue, by claiming that what he calls cheating (which, again, is me playing my character as doing what seemed completely reasonable to me given the character's knowledge - not thinking about the game as a game like the DMG says is metagaming) is what the DMG is talking about.

If you want to continue to go out of your way to be offended by this, fine. Leave me out of it, though.

Here Max refuses to do the decent thing that makes it clear he didn't mean offense of saying "Sorry you got offended, that wasn't my intention." and acknowledging that something he chose to do is part of how I ended up offended. Instead, he doubles-down on the offensive attitude by insisting that I'm going out of my way when all I did was read what words he chose to use.

You describe something that doesn't happen.

Here, Max makes a one-true-way statement that is directly in conflict with presented evidence. "That doesn't happen" is not a valid opinion of whether a thing that did happen is or is not allowed.

A player that would have a PC avoid using his weapon in order to use a torch or candle just because fire is present is a disruptive player acting in bad faith.

And here Max is clearly saying only one thing; that I am a disruptive player acting in bad faith. Why is he saying that? Because he disagrees with me that "Oh jeez, a monster!" *grabs nearest weapon to defend self* is cool.

100%, no. However, the odds of you just happening upon that combination without player knowledge would be about as likely as winning the lottery.

And then he admits that he can't know what he has claimed to know, but moves the goal post to some other thing rather than ceding the point.

So you really think that D&D characters who know that fire won't be effective would use fire in that manner over a sword?

Then Max's one-true-wayism rears its ugly head again. He and I are in disagreement about whether D&D characters would or would not think of fire as "effective", but he refuses to even acknowledge that an opinion on the matter other than his own is available - he states his own opinion as if it were objective, universal truth.

I suppose someone who was insane would opt to go with the far weaker and less effective option, but I doubt it would happen often.

And to add to it all, in typical Max fashion, he stacks on implications that not only are opinions other than his wrong, but they are insane.

If the DM wants to house rule his animals to be exactly like real world animals, he can. That's not the default state of the animals, though.

Now Max is using another of his tactics to try and paint his game as the one-true-way - sorry, paint his game as "the default state" - by labeling anything that is only a difference of interpretation, not of rules actually used or the wording of the rules in use, as "house rule"

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.

And again, included just for reference - Max isn't saying he wouldn't do it the same as I do and considering our opinions to be equal despite their differences. He's calling the opinion that he doesn't hold "nonsensical."

So hopefully that clearly illustrates for you why it appears that I am generous and serene and assuming of no ill intent, except for where Max (and any other one-true-way arguments I come across - which I will admit aren't all that many since this forum's ignore feature prevents me for seeing the posts of one-true-wayists that don't want me responding to them) is concerned.

The happy ending to this thread is when one of Max's players posts and says, "Yeah, Max takes this stuff really seriously, so we all pretend to not metagame."

I actually think the case is that Max's players are probably a lot like me. The things he says they are interested in the game for are things which I am interested in. Where I think the disconnect happens is that they have more familiarity with Max, and as a result are able to use justifications for whatever they want their characters to do that Max doesn't consider "weak" - so they appear to Max to not be metagaming according to his (inconsistently applied, twisted compared even to others that seem mostly in agreement with him, and outmoded) definition of the term.