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

[Ricochet]

Surprisingly there has been research done which showed that people enjoyed a mystery novel more when they read the final chapter first.

Likewise there are a lot of movies out there where you can go into it having a good idea how it is going to end.

Different strokes for different folks. I know a lot of people who read the last page of a book first and who can enjoy things they already know exactly how plays out. I generally don't.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I've never read the last page first, but I have read the same book more than once and enjoyed it after the first read. For some how the story unfolds is more important than what happens.

I'm sure there are adventures I could play more than once and still enjoy them. It might be with different players, It might be with the same group and different characters.

I have run the same adventure for one player more than once (otherwise the party was different players). I trusted that that player would play her character however she wanted and the rest of the table would still have fun. It worked out fine. At no point did I have to call for special roles to determine if her character might not know something that she didn't know.

I mean, we didn't encounter any trolls, but if we had and she decided to wail on one with a torch instead of a sword it just wouldn't ruin the game for any of us. The experience we have together is too fun to be ruined by something like that. And I don't see how asking her why her character knew trolls were weak to fire adds any enjoyment to the game for any of us. so I'm just going to skip that conversation and keep playing, and eventually throw something at them that looks and smells like a Troll, but is immune to fire. Because THAT does add more enjoyment to the game

 

[Imaculata]

Character = player. If the character is isolated then so should the player be.

I don't follow that way of reasoning. In my view, the character != player, and the player != the character. The player controls the character, but the players as a whole, are an audience, all taking part in the same group activity. While the character might be alone, exploring a crypt, the players are together, and stuffing their faces with snacks. D&D is a social activity, and at my table I embrace the social aspect of it.

Or, in the case of a quieter or more reticent player, just get told what to do.

As was already pointed out above, it seems that in fact the opposite is true. Quiet players in my experience are more likely to loosen up if they are not placed alone in the spotlight, and pushed to make a decision. In fact, I have a player in my group who is new to the game (this is his first time playing D&D), and he is generally more quiet than the rest. That said, he responds positively to the loose environment. He listens to the advice of the group, and yet is not afraid to ignore the advice of the group and still make his own decisions.

The open environment makes it easier for him to also voice his thoughts and reasoning. Rather than being forced to role play, he feels free to describe his thought process, and his character's thought process.

What that tells me is that, in effect, all the players are playing all the characters as a unit...the best analogy I can think of is a videogame-style adventuring party but instead of one player running it you have 4 or 5.

That is incorrect. I think it would be better to look at them as an audience.

What happens if someone wants to make a bad decision? Do they have to argue their way through the peanut gallery first?

Why would they need to do that? Nothing stops them from making their own decisions, even if their fellow players may advice against it. One thing that I have clearly noticed with this style of DM'ing, is that none of my players are afraid to completely ignore the advice of their fellow players when they feel like it.

I have to assume you've got a group of players who are all vaguely equal in their willingness to speak up - nobody is dominant, and nobody is unduly quiet. That's a rare group.

That is an incorrect assumption, and not the group I have. They are a mixed bag of quiet and loud.

Your way, for them; my way, for the active player

'Them', referring to ALL the players here, and not just the active player, and not just the other players.
I want to involve everyone, even the inactive players.

As it turned out the party did all sorts of things before reviving me, and I got 2.5 hours of grand entertainment watching them do it before I was - with difficulty - revived. Knowing it wasn't my place to get involved, I remained quiet - other than a few wry observational notes passed to the DM during gaps.

That doesn't sound like hours of grand entertainment to me. I personally wouldn't want to wait for 2 hours while everyone else was having fun, and not be allowed to be involved in any way.

A situation like that would never happen in any of my campaigns. I would always find a way to involve the inactive player, even if it means giving him/her temporary control of an npc.

Well, it's not a boardgame, for one thing.

Well, other than the lack of a board (which is arguable, if you are using miniatures and dungeon tiles), is it though?

and were I to find myself playing at such a table I'd be having harsh words with anyone trying to make suggestions when their character isn't in position to do so.

Why? See, the last bit of that sentence is especially telling to me. It seems like you are making a judgement call in regards to whether they can comment on the situation, depending on whether their character is present.

But the players are all present. They are all sitting around the table, and they are all listening... so why can't they all comment? Why can't they be an audience?

I've learned the hard way that this is how the game...maybe "must" is too strong a word, but certainly ought to...be played. Your way just leads to quieter players being marginalized and-or told what to do, even in situations when the spotlight should be on them alone; and also leads to characters/players knowing things they shouldn't e.g. the anagram-name example.

What if it didn't 'ought to be' played this way though? What if there were other ways to play the game, that actually made game more fun for everyone, and a bit more relaxed? Then maybe we'd get rid of the entire metagaming mentality, and no longer worry about it quite so much.

 

[Ricochet]

I've never read the last page first, but I have read the same book more than once and enjoyed it after the first read. For some how the story unfolds is more important than what happens.

I'm sure there are adventures I could play more than once and still enjoy them. It might be with different players, It might be with the same group and different characters.

Oh definitely! But I still prefer reading/experiencing things spoiler-free so-to-speak the first time around. Second time, whether a movie, a book, a module or other forms of entertainment, might bring new perspectives by KNOWING how things will go down, but I wouldn't want to skip to that part if I can help it.

 

[Lanefan]

That's not an answer to the question "Why?"

In-game realism reflected by what happens at the table.

If your character can't communicate with mine in-game then you-as-player can't tell me anything in-character out-of-game.

In my experience, that hasn't been the case. In fact, using the approach [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] describes, I've found that quieter and more reticent players have actually flourished.

Interesting. That said, I know my players (and myself as a player) well enough to say that wouldn't happen here. In fact, were we to try this I'd say the life expectancy of our games would be measured in real-time hours...it would flat-out blow up. And not in a fun way.

No one has to argue, assuming the group is actually trying to work together to have fun. If the group is arguing that someone is making a "bad decision", the issue isn't that the group has been allowed to make suggestions to each other, it is that they have incompatible ideas of what makes a decision good or bad - which isn't actually solved by not letting anyone make suggestions. Quietly incompatible is still incompatible.

Comes down to player knowledge v character knowledge again.

Let's try to use the druid-at-the-secret-meeting example, and have me as the active player. The person I'm meeting is supposedly an ally to whom I'm to deliver some sensitive information; but secretly he's a villain to whom giving this information would be a very bad idea. While I'm at the meeting someone else in the group back at the inn figures out the villain's deception and tells the table, probably assuming I'll adjust my actions accordingly while at the meeting.

What happens if I decide to give out the information anyway?

You talk about rare... I've never seen someone sit 2.5 hours waiting to play and not getting to, except when it was as a direct result of the rest of the group actively attempting to exclude the person waiting.

Where I see it as just a part of the game. (though it is one of my buttressing arguments in favour of having more than one character in the party...)

Not because I've never experienced patient players, mind you, but because the players I have experienced are typically interested in getting everyone involved in actually playing - myself included - which means they wouldn't intentionally take longer than absolutely necessary to get to the part where no one is sitting out.

You'll like this bit even more, then: it took a while because they did some exploring - no problem there - and then got into an in-party argument that became a bit of a fight, during/shortly after which one of the thieves found a secret compartment, got possessed by what was in it, and attacked the party druid. In other words, much of the time was spent PvP either intentionally or not. And it was all great fun to watch!

That sounds a lot like you are saying no one could disagree with you on this without that meaning they just haven't learned the right way yet.

More that I simply can't fathom how this style of play leads to anything other than fights, bitterness, hurt feelings, and under it all a rather unrealistic game.

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

I mean, we didn't encounter any trolls, but if we had and she decided to wail on one with a torch instead of a sword it just wouldn't ruin the game for any of us. The experience we have together is too fun to be ruined by something like that. And I don't see how asking her why her character knew trolls were weak to fire adds any enjoyment to the game for any of us. so I'm just going to skip that conversation and keep playing, and eventually throw something at them that looks and smells like a Troll, but is immune to fire. Because THAT does add more enjoyment to the game

^This. Thanks for putting into words what I have been trying to get across for several pages now. I don't get why a debate over the reasons for a character's action would make the game more fun. You could do away with all those worries, and just have a way more fun and relaxed game.

Let's try to use the druid-at-the-secret-meeting example, and have me as the active player. The person I'm meeting is supposedly an ally to whom I'm to deliver some sensitive information; but secretly he's a villain to whom giving this information would be a very bad idea. While I'm at the meeting someone else in the group back at the inn figures out the villain's deception and tells the table, probably assuming I'll adjust my actions accordingly while at the meeting.

Just for the sake of accuracy btw (and this has nothing to do with your argument), the informant wasn't a villain in my example. The informant, Sebastian Roche, was the head of the city guard, and also a trusted ally of the local thieves guild. This revealed that Sebastian Roche secretly worked together with the thieves guild, not because he was a villain, but because he felt they were a necessary evil. He believed that there were far greater threats to the city to worry about, and that any thieves guild would quickly be replaced by a new one, which might be worse than the previous one. So he felt it was easier to leave them be, and just keep an eye on them. They would pick the pockets of fat nobles who had way too much gold anyway, but their crimes were insignificant compared to some of the dark powers that conspired against the city. Roche couldn't pass his information to the players officially, so he did so unofficially under a false identity.

This plot twist surprised the players, because it meant he was a much deeper character than they had at first assumed. How he behaved in public (often a bit antagonistic towards the players), was mostly just show. In reality, it turned out he wasn't a bad guy at all, but a good and smart man, and an ally to their cause. This also meant that all of a sudden some of the remarks of the leader of the thieves guild, made more sense to them. Obviously the leader of the thieves guild was aware of his informant's real identity, but this confirmed it.

Thanks to the perceptiveness of the other players, the druid could now put some extra thought into what he'd say to the informant. Would he let the informant know that he knew his true identity? The choice was still his own, but this shows exactly how it can be fun for the other players to participate in things that their characters aren't involved in.

 

[Shasarak]

Different strokes for different folks. I know a lot of people who read the last page of a book first and who can enjoy things they already know exactly how plays out. I generally don't.

I thought it was an interesting study in that the results ran counter to what you may intuitively expect when reading a mystery.

On the other end of the spectrum from yourself I know that there are people that enjoy rereading their favourite book or watching their favourite movie over and over again so certainly being surprised is not the only thing that people enjoy.

 

[iserith]

^This. Thanks for putting into words what I have been trying to get across for several pages now. I don't get why a debate over the reasons for a character's action would make the game more fun. You could do away with all those worries, and just have a way more fun and relaxed game.

I think it's great if the player offers up a reason because that just fleshes out the character further. But I don't think demanding it be done, especially at the risk of having one's action declaration invalidated by a DM all too eager to emphatically state what a character knows, is a good approach.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't follow that way of reasoning. In my view, the character != player, and the player != the character. The player controls the character, but the players as a whole, are an audience, all taking part in the same group activity. While the character might be alone, exploring a crypt, the players are together, and stuffing their faces with snacks. D&D is a social activity, and at my table I embrace the social aspect of it.

Sure, and they can talk about football or politics or beer preferences. But the character who is alone exploring the crypt is alone, and that in my view should be reflected by the interactions at the table.

As was already pointed out above, it seems that in fact the opposite is true. Quiet players in my experience are more likely to loosen up if they are not placed alone in the spotlight, and pushed to make a decision. In fact, I have a player in my group who is new to the game (this is his first time playing D&D), and he is generally more quiet than the rest. That said, he responds positively to the loose environment. He listens to the advice of the group, and yet is not afraid to ignore the advice of the group and still make his own decisions.

The open environment makes it easier for him to also voice his thoughts and reasoning. Rather than being forced to role play, he feels free to describe his thought process, and his character's thought process.

'Forced' to role play? Er...isn't role-playing kind of the point of the whole thing?

Glad to hear the new player is working out well, though.

That is incorrect. I think it would be better to look at them as an audience.

Exactly...only this isn't an audience-participation kind of show.

Why would they need to do that? Nothing stops them from making their own decisions, even if their fellow players may advice against it. One thing that I have clearly noticed with this style of DM'ing, is that none of my players are afraid to completely ignore the advice of their fellow players when they feel like it.

Around here if said advice was ignored in favour of doing something less optimal (e.g. my druid-meeting example, previous post) the table response would almost certainly start with something like "You dumbass - why'd you do that for?", or worse, said player-to-player; and the fight would be on.

Nope, don't need that.

That doesn't sound like hours of grand entertainment to me. I personally wouldn't want to wait for 2 hours while everyone else was having fun, and not be allowed to be involved in any way.

A situation like that would never happen in any of my campaigns. I would always find a way to involve the inactive player, even if it means giving him/her temporary control of an npc.

We do likewise. Problem is that the party (in a strange departure, for us) has no NPCs at the moment.

And though you might think I wasn't having any fun, rest assured that I was. I'm quite capable of being entertained without being involved.

Well, other than the lack of a board (which is arguable, if you are using miniatures and dungeon tiles), is it though?

I'd say it is different, in many ways. Most boardgames, for example, have a reasonably clear endpoint; and most also have a very clear win condition at that endpoint. D&D - usually - has neither; it's open-ended and if there is a win condition at all it's often unclear and frequently changing. Boardgames also usually pit the players against each other; and while D&D can certainly be played this way too, most people see it as a game where the players co-operate rather than compete. Boardgames are not often trying to tell a story or replicate any sort of fantasy-reality; D&D almost always is to at least some extent.

Why? See, the last bit of that sentence is especially telling to me. It seems like you are making a judgement call in regards to whether they can comment on the situation, depending on whether their character is present.

Obviously.

Except I don't see it as a "judgement call" but instead a simple fact of life in the game.

But the players are all present. They are all sitting around the table, and they are all listening... so why can't they all comment? Why can't they be an audience?

They are an audience. I merely expect them to be a non-disruptive one.

If you go to a live theatre performance do you call out suggestions to the actors on stage as to what their next actions should be? To me it's very close to - if not exactly - the same thing.

What if it didn't 'ought to be' played this way though? What if there were other ways to play the game, that actually made game more fun for everyone, and a bit more relaxed? Then maybe we'd get rid of the entire metagaming mentality, and no longer worry about it quite so much.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? No thanks. I'll stick to some realism in the game where I can.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Just for the sake of accuracy btw (and this has nothing to do with your argument), the informant wasn't a villain in my example. The informant, Sebastian Roche, was the head of the city guard, and also a trusted ally of the local thieves guild. This revealed that Sebastian Roche secretly worked together with the thieves guild, not because he was a villain, but because he felt they were a necessary evil. He believed that there were far greater threats to the city to worry about, and that any thieves guild would quickly be replaced by a new one, which might be worse than the previous one. So he felt it was easier to leave them be, and just keep an eye on them. They would pick the pockets of fat nobles who had way too much gold anyway, but their crimes were insignificant compared to some of the dark powers that conspired against the city. Roche couldn't pass his information to the players officially, so he did so unofficially under a false identity.

All fair; I was merely trying to change up the example to make it a bit more obvious, in order to make my question of "what happens next" more relevant.