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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I want to start by apologizing both for the length of this post, and for any misattributed quotes that it may contain. I am making this a single post via the multi-quote function of the forum to ensure that I don't miss any comments that I wished to address, and am doing my best to keep the quote tags straight.

Well in a sense all "challenges" are somewhat of a "gotcha" in a certain sense, because they are challenges.

"Gotcha" is not an inherent element of challenges. For example, the game of basketball is a challenge, and it has all of its rules clearly spelled out with no "gotcha" elements - but presenting the game of basketball as a challenge and omitting the detail that the other team is allowed to swat the ball away from you, and suddenly it's not just a challenge, but also a "gotcha".

...an inexperienced player could come up with throwing a firery log at the troll not knowing the troll's weakness, sure. But it still wouldn't be very likely they would do that.

I don't think we can actually say how likely it is or isn't. It seems unlikely to you, but it seems absolutely natural to me. Perhaps one day someone will gather a large enough sample of people that have never played before and run them through a campaign scenario to find out how many that choose to role-play tending to the campfire when asked what they are doing in camp at a given point also choose to use that fire as a weapon or deterrent to the attacking monster.

Until then, there is no more weight to one of our beliefs than the other.

But if you did it, based on the conversation we've had so far and the way you seem to like to play, knowing that you did know a troll's weakness, I would highly suspect you chose that action because you know they have a weakness to fire.

Again, I remind you that you don't have enough information to determine the way I like to play with any accuracy.

You are going far outside the bounds of what you do know, inventing information to suit your conclusion, and then telling me that you are justified in preventing me from role-playing my character in the way I want to role-play my character because I'm me, rather than the different player whom you would allow to role-play this character in the way I want to role-play this character.

No, I am nor forcing you to something because of what you know as a player.

Please explain how, given the only difference between me and the player you would allow to take this action with the character is what we know as players, that isn't forcing my hand because of that difference.

I am trying to get your character to only act according to the things he knows.

What information does my character not have that is required for him to attack an unknown monster with a burning log that is already in his hand? Please be specific in your answer.

If he doesn't know something, he shouldn't made decisions that would require him to know something he clearly doesn't.

What decision has my character made that requires knowledge he doesn't have? Please be specific in your answer.

But what really matters is what your character knows.

I agree - which is why I keep insisting that DMs should stop trying to police player thoughts, and stick to policing character actions. And yet, those DMs keep doing as you are doing, and fail to see that they are policing my thoughts even in an example where the character's actions are perfectly acceptable to them so long as my thoughts aren't involved.

Well, look, that's for your DM to decide. If I were DM'ing, I there would be some kind of perception or investigation check. But you might fail it, and in that case you wouldn't know it was there.

Putting the only clues that could possibly alert a player to the challenge present in their character's environment behind a pass-fail roll gate is designing the challenge specifically to be "gotcha" in nature. There is no necessity for every clue to be missable, unless the intent is "Gotcha" style play.

But your argument is that you somehow knew to cast water breathing even though you wouldn't know it was there.

Actually, my argument is that the character doesn't have to know anything special in order to choose to cast a spell as a precaution.

You don't have to know you are going to be attacked today to cast mage armor.
You don't have to know that the dungeon is full of flame-jet traps to cast protection from energy.
And you don't have to know the DM has secreted away a drowning trap and designed it so your character can't possibly guess at its presence to cast water breathing.

But a DM that is concerned about metagaming to the degree that they are going to police player thoughts (i.e. "You heard me tell the rogue he fell in water!") rather than character actions (i.e. "Yeah, there is nothing the character is doing that is actually impossible... guess that's fine then"), is very likely to act under the false assumption that you do have to know those things to cast (at least some of) those spells.

When a large, green, warty creature with big teeth is bearing down on you, you generally don't grab something far less effective than your sword.

There is no evidence available to the character which paints the burning log as "far less effective."

A stick, even with fire on it, ESPECIALLY with fire on it, isn't going to do much damage and is likely to break after a swing or two.

A stick with fire on it might indeed break after a swing or two... it also might dissuade the monster from attack without ever making contact, because things that can burn to death generally shy away from flames.

Traps are literally designed NOT to be noticeable. That's why it's hard to notice them.

I think there is an important distinction to make when thinking about traps. That being that while their in-character design might indeed be to go unnoticed so that people fall into them, which itself isn't necessarily the case because traps that are obviously present also work to dissuade interlopers (like how the "Brinks Security" sign outside a house, not just that there is an alarm system within the house, deters break-ins), the game-element design is intended for players and characters to interact with them as a form of challenge.

'Make a dex save. You take X damage' is neither a meaningful interaction, nor a meaningful challenge.

[MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION]'s argument is an example of the continuum fallacy. He's arguing that you cannot tell the difference between someone engaged in metagaming (a term used here to mean 'acting on player knowledge that the character does not have) and someone not engaged in metagaming because there exist scenarios between the two ends where it is difficult to determine.

That's not an accurate summation of my argument.

An accurate summation of my argument is this: If metagaming means 'using what a player knows, rather than what the character knows, to determine the character's actions', then stopping me from role-playing a character in a way that you would allow another player to role-play that character is metagaming.

Presumably, there's some as yet unstated test that he uses to determine the difference between 'cheating' and an action that is possible.

There is such a test. I hadn't mentioned it in this thread, but some folks may have seen me mention it in prior discussion about metagaming. I call it the "Newbie Test." It's a very simple test; think of what the character is doing in the mindset that a complete newbie - no gaming experience, no lore knowledge of the game/setting - is the one having the character do it. If there is no problem with the action in that case, then there is no problem with the action in whatever the present case is. If the newbie would need to be told "Actually, you can't do that" then it might be cheating (I said "might be" because it could be a player that honestly didn't realize they couldn't, which doesn't have the intent behind it that the word 'cheating' usually conveys).

I also don't think I should police the thoughts of my players, generally speaking.

Telling a player they can't do what you would allow another player to do with the same character because that player has different thoughts in their head is the definition of "police the thoughts of my players."

I do think that the troll example, and monster traits in general, is not a good example to use, and I think it kind of distracts from the bigger problems of meta-gaming.

Sorry to use an example you don't like - It's the direct result of me having actually been through having my role-playing declared metagaming, so it feels like the perfect example to me.

What I am saying is that when Aaron suggests that there is no problem whatsoever, and it's not "meta-gaming" in any way, for his character to somehow know a dungeon has a water trap...

I never suggested the character knows the dungeon has a water trap.

It seems like it's common sense to me, that role-playing means to some degree at least that your character doesn't have omniscient powers and doesn't somehow know everything that every other character at the table knows.

By making this statement you are implying that I have suggested characters do have "omniscient powers" and do "know everything that every other character at the table knows". That implication is false, I have done no such thing.

...like Aaron tries to make in this thread, that it was just by chance I happened to look in that place.

I've never tried to make that argument, stop misrepresenting me. It's rude and it doesn't make your arguments look any better.

...Aaron's suggestion that using meta knowledge to anticipate and bypass traps that his character couldn't actually know about...

This is misrepresenting my statements again. I've never suggested using meta-knowledge as a player; only not using meta-knowledge against the players as a DM.

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.

Again, what the OP described isn't metagaming under the modern definition of the word, it's just bad faith play by way of intentionally griefing another player. That some people consider it "metagaming" actually distracts from the real issue at hand - players antagonizing other players on purpose.

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 know I certainly didn't care for the insinuation.

"metagaming." As [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] said, it's practically a meaningless word, bandied about as often as it is.

Just in case no one was counting, that's at least 3 people, myself included, that have agreed with my earlier claim that got shouted-down regarding "metagaming" being a meaningless word (outside the much more specific definition presented in the 5th edition rule-books).

As for Aaron's bypassing of traps...

I feel it's important to keep things clear; I bypassed no traps. It was somebody else bypassing a trap (or, more specifically, reducing the impact of a trap while not actually making it less likely that they do fall into the trap - since water breathing doesn't stop the trap from dropping the character in the water), and me saying "Sounds like a thing a character could do in their circumstances, no big deal."

"Gotcha" challenges are part of the game.

They do not have to be. That's a fact, and here's an opinion; I don't think they should be.

More seriously, what's the difference between being surprised by a trap and being surprised by a monster, other than the likely amount of pain/lethality it might inflict?

A surprise monster still has interaction. The players roll initiative, choices are made, actions are taken, results occur over time. It's a process, even without the chance to notice the monster and start the encounter without surprise, and death of a character is likely to have multiple opportunities to be prevented before it actually occurs (multiple attack & damage rolls, chances to heal before dying, etc.)

A surprise trap doesn't involve any choices for the player to make about the trap, no actions to take to interact with the trap, and the result is basically an instantaneous thing - even if the result is a dead character.

"Surprise! The cave is full of ogres!" leads to an encounter for players to play through. "Surprise! You fell on some spikes, take 10 damage and save vs. poison or die!" doesn't lead to anything - it's over by the time the player knows anything about it.

 

[iserith]

Ah, and now we come to it.

Pretending not to know, for an experienced player, is and always will be part of the game - and a fact of life - if there's to be any level of immersion in the thought process of your character(s) as they discover and learn about the game world and what's in it...and how best (or worst) to deal with it.

It's tangentially related to the lore/canon issue in those other threads: even though the player might know everything there is to know about the world of Greyhawk it's extremely unlikely (to the point of near-zero chance) a given character will have anything close to that same level of knowledge. For the character, it's a journey of discovery even though the player may have seen it all before...and the steeped-in-lore player then has no cause whatsoever to complain if that journey discovers some non-canon elements, as to the character that's just the way it is.

I-as-player know that trolls don't regenerate fire damage, but my character doesn't (yet) and until she learns it I'm goong to play it as if she doesn't know. What I know is - and AFAIC should be - irrelevant. Trial and error.

Your preferred option - which is valid, but tedious for the DM - is to change things up. Trolls become vulnerable to electricity or cold, for example, rather than fire. Red dragons breathe acid. Green dragons breathe toxic butterflies. And so on. However (and I've tried this, in the past, before abandoning the idea) what I've found is that doing this well ends up requiring a complete homebrewing of much of the Monster Manual...hence my comment about tedious; as that's a big book.

My preferred option is to do nothing, which is what I do 100% of the time when it setting up my game to counteract "metagaming." Because I long ago gave up worrying about it. My game doesn't lack opportunities for discovery and "immersion." What it does lack is the concern that anybody around me is "metagaming" without any need to include a "no metagaming" clause in my social contract. Unfortunately, I do need to mention "metagaming" in my Session Zero document so as to alert players unfamiliar with my approach that they no longer have to worry about it.

...but let's face it, in a game such as you propose their belief is going to be correct far, far more often than random chance would dictate.

What if it is? What does random chance have to do with it?

 

[iserith]

How are the players' preferences the DM's fault?

The DM created a situation where "metagaming" was possible and thus the players were dissatisfied when someone "metagamed."

It starts with the DM.

 

[iserith]

So pretty much every monster ever made that the DM hasn't altered in some way or designed from scratch.

If you're running games for veterans and you really care about people not "metagaming," then the most assured approach is to change things up. Way more reliable than hoping a bunch of other people aren't drawing upon their player knowledge. It's in your control and it's practically effortless.

 

[Maxperson]

or, you can make challenges outside of the monster. like ledges, or a puzzle of some sort.

I understand that. The point was that if the it's the DM's fault that players metagame(it's not by the way) and the way to avoid it is not to use challenges that allow metagaming, then the DM can never use any printed material.

FWIW, I am not a good DM, barely any experience in fact. During a session a little while back, probably my 3rd or 4th false start adventure, my players ran into a pair of giant lizards. It took about 3 seconds to add a mental note for a 2d4 poison spray style attack, and to describe them as having a viscous green fluid dripping from their mouth. You don't have to make the changes ahead of time, unless it is a particularly complicated change.

Which is also not the point. As the DM I should be able to use Monster Manual creatures and not have to worry about players metagaming. If a player metagames, it's that player's fault, not the DM's. I utterly reject [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s notion that I am responsible for the actions of another player.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no evidence available to the character which paints the burning log as "far less effective."

There absolutely is. It's called experience. Unless the PC has the IQ of the stick he's trying to swing, he's going to know which is more effective in combat. The PCs are not the Three Stooges.

A stick with fire on it might indeed break after a swing or two... it also might dissuade the monster from attack without ever making contact, because things that can burn to death generally shy away from flames.

They shy away from swords being swung at their melon, too.

I think there is an important distinction to make when thinking about traps. That being that while their in-character design might indeed be to go unnoticed so that people fall into them, which itself isn't necessarily the case because traps that are obviously present also work to dissuade interlopers (like how the "Brinks Security" sign outside a house, not just that there is an alarm system within the house, deters break-ins), the game-element design is intended for players and characters to interact with them as a form of challenge.

The sign outside is not a trap. It's a warning. Traps that are obviously present are not traps at all. They are obstacles.

Traps can still be interacted with as a form of challenge, even if that trap is hidden as traps are intended to be. A fall into the water trap leaves the PC treading water until he drowns, or figures out a way to escape. A challenge! Further, another function of a trap is not as a challenge, but rather as resource drain. It all depends on why you want the trap to be there.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM created a situation where "metagaming" was possible and thus the players were dissatisfied when someone "metagamed."

It starts with the DM.

No. It starts and ends with the player. I am not responsible for the actions of another player, ever. That's like saying that just because I drive to the beach with a bunch of buddies, I'm responsible if one is an ass and starts stomping the sand castles of children. After all, I created the situation where that was possible. Again, no. You are wrong.

If you want to take that burden onto yourself, you are welcome to do so. You are not welcome to tell me that I'm at fault for the actions of others.

 

[iserith]

I utterly reject [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s notion that I am responsible for the actions of another player.

As DM, you absolutely are responsible for setting up a situation where "metagaming" can have a negative impact.

 

[Maxperson]

As DM, you absolutely are responsible for setting up a situation where "metagaming" can have a negative impact.

However, despite that, I bear zero responsibility for any metagaming that occurs. I don't play with toddlers who have no self-control. I play with adults and I expect them to act like adults. That includes not metagaming. Nobody but the players are responsible for metagaming that occurs.

 

[iserith]

However, despite that, I bear zero responsibility for any metagaming that occurs. I don't play with toddlers who have no self-control. I play with adults and I expect them to act like adults. That includes not metagaming. Nobody but the players are responsible for metagaming that occurs.

So, in this post, you agree that you set the stage where "metagaming" can occur and then you say anyone who "metagames" are "toddlers who have no self-control." That those who "metagame" are not acting "like adults."

And here I thought @secondhander's declaration that you're not roleplaying if you "metagame" was the most egregious thing posted in this thread. That seems so quaint now.

You saw it here first, folks. @Maxperson knows he can stop "metagaming" before it begins, chooses not to, and declares those who don't conform "toddlers." What a twisted little social test you've concocted. LOL, hilarious.