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

[Bawylie]

Well, I'm not going to try to argue my points any further because I think we've mostly talked this thing through for now, but I am genuinely curious how you would handle the last example I posited, where only one character was told the secret location of a genie lamp, and a different player "just happened" to look in the extremely unlikely place where the lamp was hidden to claim it first, even though there was no way that character would have had that knowledge.

What would you do, if anything, about that. Would you consider it a form of meta-gaming, or not? Would you think that the first player was treated unfairly when he role-played according to an unspoken rule of what characters know and don't know, when the other player simply ignored that and decided to use the meta-knowledge to his advantage? Again, this is not a challenge; I am interested in what you'd think of that.

Cool. Good question.

So, one of the things I do in my games is a sort of preamble, talking about how I like to run things at the game.

For the cooperative games, one of those things I tell players is that anything I say out loud at the table as DM is to be treated as common knowledge to all. If you hear it, your character knows it. We assume your characters are nearly constantly keeping each other up to date. Another thing I say is that I have no interest in issues of player/character knowledge divide and will not spend any table time on it, so you should play that out as far as you're interested in doing so.

That tends to work out just fine and nearly everyone plays in good faith. So I'd address the dilemma you posed largely by ignoring it until and unless it became contentious. At which point I'd rely on one other part of my preamble. Which is that PVP style actions are resolved by the target of those actions.

Player A knows the "secret"
Player B scoops player A.

Later they fight about it. Since B stole from A, A gets to determine how that worked out, ultimately.

It comes down to that age old rule among children sharing something: "You cut it, but I get first pick."

Now all that's maybe way outside how some people prefer to play. But in practice, this sort of thing rarely comes up. Because the rule is in place, and everyone hears it every time they play, there isn't much incentive to try something anti-cooperative. It won't work unless everyone else is buying-in.

Major benefit for me is that people adjust their own behavior and I don't have to waste table time on frivolous disputes. And that's a huge priority for me we can waste time when we're not stealing it from 3 or 4 other people. Not during game time though. That's wrong.


-Brad

 

[jasper]

Much like the issue of "metagaming" the weaknesses of monsters, your example highlights the true source of the problem: The DM who doesn't take simple, practically effortless steps to mitigate or eliminate it in the first place. Such as by taking the player aside or communicating through notes. No, the onus is instead placed on the players to pretend they don't know what they know because the DM couldn't be bothered to prepare and run the game in such a way that it's not an issue.

It's not even so much that I don't care about "metagaming" as it my game isn't impacted by it at all because I prepare accordingly.

Problem solve. Monster knowledge check Int history DC 5 for common monsters, DC 10 for uncommon. ETC. DC of monster may change with location or how goober the player is being.
So if Aaron of Banana wants to whine because I allowed ned newby to use a torch on a troll last session, but I have problem with his brand new pc who was hermit living in the back woods of Alabama from birth to 5 days before the session using the firewood, I will just have banana roll. The problem then if Aaron wants to tick of the dm, he start telling the dm he burning down time days before each session to research local monsters.

 

[machineelf]

You cut off the important part of the sentence in the post of mine you quoted. I will bold it for you:



Which you then double down on here:



So I hope you can see why your posts are getting this much attention.

As to whether your players wouldn't like to play in my games, TRY ME. I'm happy to prove you wrong any day of the week. I'm easy to find on Roll20.

Well you might be surprised but I think your players would have a fun time in my games as well; I think you have a misconception about how I run a game, and you seem to think I lord it over my players and force them to so something they don't find find. I don't. We all just like to play characters with backstories, and to play in character.

But this isn't a competition and nobody is trying to take anyone else's players. I presume everyone has fun where they are.

I admit I am shocked at the response I've gotten. I said what I presumed was a somewhat a mundane thing and a widely held view -- that role-playing is about playing a character and metagaming is generally considered bad form. And yet judging by the response I've gotten you'd think I'm the most hard nosed DM in existence. I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I thought for sure most people would agree that Aaron's suggestion that using meta knowledge to anticipate and bypass traps that his character couldn't actually know about was angle shooting and, again, bad form. But if people did agree on that point, they have left the thread. I still think it is.

To the idea that other players have no problem with meta-gaming, I present this thread and the OP as evidence that's not the case. Here is a new player who is turned off by other people's metagaming at the table. And I would be too.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[machineelf]

Possibly. It's certainly had that effect on me. Way to much "Play the right way. My way" going on.

I'll speak for myself and reiterate (i've said it a few times) that we may disagree on what role-playing means, but I'd never tell you that you have to play the way I play or that your way to play is wrong or that your way isn't fun. It might not be fun to me, but that's just my tastes. If you and your group are having fun, you are doing it the right way.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

Problem solve. Monster knowledge check Int history DC 5 for common monsters, DC 10 for uncommon. ETC. DC of monster may change with location or how goober the player is being.
So if Aaron of Banana wants to whine because I allowed ned newby to use a torch on a troll last session, but I have problem with his brand new pc who was hermit living in the back woods of Alabama from birth to 5 days before the session using the firewood, I will just have banana roll. The problem then if Aaron wants to tick of the dm, he start telling the dm he burning down time days before each session to research local monsters.

You mean, a check to establish a character's knowledge such that it justifies an attempt at an action? I'm going to have to pass on that. A fictional action described by the player requires no justification in my view. If Aaron says he wants to swing a burning log at a troll, then all I get to say is what happens when he tries. Maybe I call for an attack roll to see if it hits or a call for a check to see if he's burned in the process. Or maybe he takes a little damage, but dishes some out on a hit. Whatever. What I don't do is roll to see if Aaron's character can even think of trying to do that.

Now, if Aaron wants to try to recall what lore he's heard about trolls, then that might call for an Intelligence check in which case I would tell him something useful on a success or something interesting on a failure. And that's smart play for Aaron because he doesn't actually know if I changed those trolls such that fire doesn't turn off their regeneration - maybe it's just acid that does it with these particular trolls. Maybe fire doubles the regenerative capabilities of this specie of troll or just makes it mad, giving it advantage on its next attack. If he just assumes fire's the best tool, he's taking a risk. By doing it this way, I've actually made "metagaming" dangerous and avoiding the negative consequences of bad assumptions is exactly why the 5e DMG says that players should avoid "metagame thinking."

Contrast that with just telling people who "metagame" that they aren't "roleplaying" and tell me which of those two approaches you think is more effective.

 

[Caliban]

I'll speak for myself and reiterate (i've said it a few times) that we may disagree on what role-playing means, but I'd never tell you that you have to play the way I play or that your way to play is wrong or that your way isn't fun. It might not be fun to me, but that's just my tastes. If you and your group are having fun, you are doing it the right way.

How do you know if we agree or disagree on anything?

 

[machineelf]

Much like the issue of "metagaming" the weaknesses of monsters, your example highlights the true source of the problem: The DM who doesn't take simple, practically effortless steps to mitigate or eliminate it in the first place. Such as by taking the player aside or communicating through notes. No, the onus is instead placed on the players to pretend they don't know what they know because the DM couldn't be bothered to prepare and run the game in such a way that it's not an issue.

It's not even so much that I don't care about "metagaming" as it my game isn't impacted by it at all because I prepare accordingly.

Your responses are starting to sound pointed and personal. I put a lot of effort into preparing my games and my players show up every week and have fun. We don't run into the problems that you think we do, and we've had a good group that has enjoyed each other's play style for years.

Maybe tone down the personal attacks a little bit. If you didn't mean to make them, it sure sounds like you are implying them. We can have an interesting debate on the nature of role-playing without attacking each other. I'm pretty sure I've said to multiple people in this thread that I'm sure their games are fun and if everyone in their group enjoys it then they are doing something right.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

Well you might be surprised but I think your players would have a fun time in my games as well; I think you have a misconception about how I run a game, and you seem to think I lord it over my players and force them to so something they don't find find. I don't. We all just like to play characters with backstories, and to play in character.

I don't have any conception at all about how you run games or whether my players would like it. My statements are all in response to your own, be they comments about who would enjoy what game or whether someone who is drawing on player knowledge is roleplaying.

I admit I am shocked at the response I've gotten. I said what I presumed was a somewhat a mundane thing and a widely held view -- that role-playing is about playing a character and metagaming is generally considered bad form. And yet judging by the response I've gotten you'd think I'm the most hard nosed DM in existence. I'm pretty sure I'm not.

You might not be a hard-nosed DM, but you've basically told a bunch of people on the forum they aren't roleplaying. I don't think it's surprising that some people don't care for that.

I thought for sure most people would agree that Aaron's suggestion that using meta knowledge to anticipate and bypass traps that his character couldn't actually know about was angle shooting and, again, bad form. But if people did agree on that point, they have left the thread. I still think it is.

To the idea that other players have no problem with meta-gaming, I present this thread and the OP as evidence that's not the case. Here is a new player who is turned off by other people's metagaming at the table. And I would be too.

I think the OP is more concerned about the general dickery that's going on at the table and gave it a name - "metagaming." As [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] said, it's practically a meaningless word, bandied about as often as it is.

As for Aaron's bypassing of traps, the fault if any lay with the DM in my view.

 

[Bawylie]

Well you might be surprised but I think your players would have a fun time in my games as well; I think you have a misconception about how I run a game, and you seem to think I lord it over my players and force them to so something they don't find find. I don't. We all just like to play characters with backstories, and to play in character.

But this isn't a competition and nobody is trying to take anyone else's players. I presume everyone has fun where they are.

I admit I am shocked at the response I've gotten. I said what I presumed was a somewhat a mundane thing and a widely held view -- that role-playing is about playing a character and metagaming is generally considered bad form. And yet judging by the response I've gotten you'd think I'm the most hard nosed DM in existence. I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I thought for sure most people would agree that Aaron's suggestion that using meta knowledge to anticipate and bypass traps that his character couldn't actually know about was angle shooting and, again, bad form. But if people did agree on that point, they have left the thread. I still think it is.

To the idea that other players have no problem with meta-gaming, I present this thread and the OP as evidence that's not the case. Here is a new player who is turned off by other people's metagaming at the table. And I would be too.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

Yeah. I wouldn't say "nobody has a problem with it."

Obviously it can be a problem and it can lead to sub-optimal fun and game time.

So far though, the predominant answer (as suggested in Wikipedia, above) is to treat it like a sin, essentially, and shun it.

But I'd like to look at some of it further. Why is it a sin? Why shun it?

I think, as a DM, when someone used out of character knowledge in the past to overcome a challenge set by the DM, that basically undermined and devalued the work the DM put in. Like finding the warp tubes in Super Mario Bros that let you skip levels. I'll tell you, when my prep goes to waste, I'm not pleased about it. It's hard work down the drain. Some of us try to adopt a posture that you shouldn't care about your prep but it's very difficult to not care about your own labors. And I'd bet that feeling underwrites a lot of the reasoning DMs don't like it.

Meanwhile, of course your players have every incentive to do it! Find those warp tubes and skip by things that could be harmful. That's rational! That's a no-brainer! So we've got cross-incentives here. And if you can't remove the warp tubes, you've got to make it so that even looking for them is a form of cheating. Like the minus world. We can say "yes that's there, but obviously NOT intended to be so leave it alone!"

Anyway. That's where I think the metagaming problem basically Started. And I don't think we've done much to get past that central question of what is or isn't cheating or should we or should we not care about it.

Even my own solution is a bit of a dodge. When you get down to it, the game still works if you metagame or don't. Which leaves us arguing taste. And you just can't get anywhere doing that.


-Brad

 

[MostlyDm]

Being inconsiderate isn't cool. But in my experience you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who goes "Dammit, Bob, why didn't you let me waste my spell slot in that beholder's central eye cone?"

It's more likely in my view they'll thank Bob for being a savvy player and sharing his knowledge with the team. I would personally be grateful for having a skilled player on my side.

So, at least in regards to the example, this sounds like the DM projecting his or her own feelings about one of the players reducing the difficulty of the challenge onto the other players who might not care.

Much like the issue of "metagaming" the weaknesses of monsters, your example highlights the true source of the problem: The DM who doesn't take simple, practically effortless steps to mitigate or eliminate it in the first place. Such as by taking the player aside or communicating through notes. No, the onus is instead placed on the players to pretend they don't know what they know because the DM couldn't be bothered to prepare and run the game in such a way that it's not an issue.

It's not even so much that I don't care about "metagaming" as it my game isn't impacted by it at all because I prepare accordingly.

As always, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], you have a lot of wisdom and awesome cooperative/improv-rooted GMing mixed in with a dose of apparent egotism and seeming inability to conceive of anyone genuinely enjoying a game played in a way that you don't like.

I'm fundamentally in agreement with you that I don't care about metagaming and have zero desire to police my players. That said, I take some exception to some bits in the above quotes.

I definitely know players who would much rather their character suffer than benefit from knowledge that they have no in-game conceptualization for how their character got that knowledge. Several of my best, longest-running players are far more likely to "metagame" against their characters, because they think it will lead to entertaining challenges.

In some groups, taking people aside or using notes is largely just a waste of time that slows down the game, and it's unnecessary because the players are adept at playing the role they have and using whatever information they think makes sense for that character. I think this comes from running games for a lot of DMs, and running games with cooperative multi-DM setups... they're used to compartmentalizing information. It's actually quite easy and fun, and when appropriate metagaming can easily be used in the service of an exciting story. I trust my players to handle things using their best judgement, and they never let me down in this regard. I can't remember the last time I felt the urge to say something like "But your character doesn't know that!" ... 10+ years, certainly. If anything, I only ever say the opposite, "let's assume you guys discussed X during that downtime last night," if I think it will help move things along.

With other groups, especially newer/less experienced groups, it's sometimes a good idea to use notes or separate people when their characters are separated, and generally trying to limit player knowledge to what their character knows. This helps them from having to compartmentalize, and they can just focus on roleplaying.

A general rule of thumb is that if the players are still in the midset that D&D is something you can "win," and "success" is their primary goal, then you probably want to limit information when appropriate. That way they can fight for that success and come by it honestly. But I'm in total agreement with Iserith here: actually limit that knowledge, don't impose arbitrary constraints on the players.

But when players get out of that mindset and realize that some of the most memorable and entertaining moments are ones of total catastrophe and failure, allowing more "metagame" knowledge to leak in is just going to lead to more entertaining sequences of events. They pull the "mystery" lever intentionally, because they think it will be more fun to run from the rolling boulder than to just walk by.