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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'll stick to some realism in the game where I can.

Now you've gone back to what I have pointed out a few times in the discussion already; implying that your goal is X and thus someone else's goal is not-X, when that isn't actually the case.

You say you'll "stick to some realism" well, guess what, the rest of us are sticking to some realism too - especially when it comes down to my example of the fire and troll - and trying to suggest that we aren't because we play differently than you do (I would say "prefer to", but you haven't tried our way so you really don't know that you don't prefer it, which is significantly different from preferring not to try it) isn't doing anything to help the discussion. Just sidetrack it with unnecessary, extra, vaguely-related at best topics.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...got into an in-party argument that became a bit of a fight...

I think this may be why you "cant fathom" how the play-style that is being talked about wouldn't lead to fights, bitterness, and hurt feelings; You have a group that obviously either want to be playing against each other, or are inadvertently playing against each other because they have incompatible desires of what to get out of the game-play experience.

Yes, players that are already fighting each other when the group dynamic is to keep your ideas to yourself until you express them in-character are going to just have even more fighting if allowed to share ideas more openly.
But at the same time, players that are already supporting each other and trying to make things more fun for everyone (not just them self) are going to have even more of that if allowed to share ideas more openly.

So while the play-style is definitely a magnifier of any issues of incompatibility/fighting, it is not the cause of any of them.

 

[Lanefan]

Now you've gone back to what I have pointed out a few times in the discussion already; implying that your goal is X and thus someone else's goal is not-X, when that isn't actually the case.

You say you'll "stick to some realism" well, guess what, the rest of us are sticking to some realism too - especially when it comes down to my example of the fire and troll - and trying to suggest that we aren't because we play differently than you do (I would say "prefer to", but you haven't tried our way so you really don't know that you don't prefer it, which is significantly different from preferring not to try it) isn't doing anything to help the discussion. Just sidetrack it with unnecessary, extra, vaguely-related at best topics.

We're talking about metagaming, right?

Metagaming comes in many forms. One is the fire-troll example, pitting player knowledge vs character knowledge in a probably-unsolvable argument that can only be styled as shades of gray with each table fitting itself somewhere on the scale. Another is the table-talk example, where player communication = character communication even when such would be impossible in the game world; this one's much more black-and-white. Both are bang on topic, as are character over-optimization and a whole bunch of other things.

That said, all I know is that every time I've seen or been involved in any situation where one player started making out-of-character suggestions to another player it has ended badly. Sometimes very badly.

To learn that not only is it accepted practice at some tables but is in fact the expected norm there is, to me, mind-boggling.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I think this may be why you "cant fathom" how the play-style that is being talked about wouldn't lead to fights, bitterness, and hurt feelings; You have a group that obviously either want to be playing against each other, or are inadvertently playing against each other because they have incompatible desires of what to get out of the game-play experience.

Actually in this case the fight was entirely in character; the characters were deadly serious in character but the players involved were laughing about it both during and after. And isn't that the point?

 

[Imaculata]

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

What I mean, is that some players are less eager to actually act out their character. To talk as if they are the character. Some choose to simply describe what their character does, says and thinks, rather than to just say as the character would say it.

Every player has their own way of role playing that they feel comfortable with.

 

[Corwin]

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

Yes. Its called improv theater. And its far, far closer to typical TTRPG experiences than the correlation you were trying to bridge with more traditional theatrical venues.

 

[Corwin]

That said, all I know is that every time I've seen or been involved in any situation where one player started making out-of-character suggestions to another player it has ended badly. Sometimes very badly.

Maybe its not so much what is being said, but *how*. I, too, get a vibe from you that your group of players seems a tad bit on the hostile side (maybe not the perfect word, put passive-aggressive isn't quite right either). Quick to snap or take umbrage, at least? So, if that's the case, of course they get into fights when one suggests something to another. I'm sorry you have to deal with a group like that. I would find it tiresome rather quickly.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

We're talking about metagaming, right?

That's what we were talking about, until people tried to bring "realism" into the mix.

Once someone did that, there were two separate topics - what is or isn't metagaming (or in my case whether the word is or isn't useful as used by non-DMG sources), and what is or isn't "realism" - that some folks are falsely treating as one topic, and doing so in a way that falsely implies that anyone disagreeing about the first topic is also not interested in the second.

Another is the table-talk example, where player communication = character communication even when such would be impossible in the game world

I think that is you misreading what was said. I didn't read anything anyone said as being actual in-character communication. I did read someone saying that out-of-character communication was allowed to be treated as in-character thought, however (i.e. Dave telling Mark "Maybe try turning the wheel to the left, then flip the lever up?" is not the character Brunak telling the character Leomar the same thing - it is just Dave providing Mark suggestion of something that Leomar might think to do with the wheel and lever he has encountered while alone).

And still, nothing to do with whether what happens in play does or does not "stick to some realism."

No matter how the table handles player to player communication, it is entirely separate from how much "realism" the story the characters are a part of has.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Actually in this case the fight was entirely in character; the characters were deadly serious in character but the players involved were laughing about it both during and after. And isn't that the point?

I'm sorry, I guess I put too much weight behind your belief that these players that can laugh out of character while having a "deadly serious" in-character "fight" would all come away with hurt feelings and spoiled fun if anyone of them were allowed to suggest things to them out-of-character.

You made it sound like you had a rational fear that your players that are already antagonizing each other would be more antagonistic if given more opportunity for interaction with each other, rather than an irrational fear that players with no issues with each other would somehow develop group-wrecking antagonism for each other if allowed to speak to each other out-of-character about anything related to the game they are playing together.

 

[iserith]

To learn that not only is it accepted practice at some tables but is in fact the expected norm there is, to me, mind-boggling.

If it makes you feel less boggled, my stance on this is the same with any sort of advice - offer it only when asked. Nobody wants a "table captain," that guy or gal who tells everyone what to do (even if it's with perfectly good intentions).

The forums don't count of course. This is the place where unsolicited advice goes.