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

[machineelf]

And look, I wouldn't really care if you decided to use a fiery log in combat in one particular case If were your DM. I wouldn't keep you from that. Monster weaknesses and player knowledge of them is not the biggest meta gaming concern I have.

There is a line there somewhere, like if you got out your copy of the monster manual for every fight to see what a monster's strengths and weaknesses were, that would seem wrong. I don't see the difference between that and just having all the monsters memorized. But any single case wouldn't bother me. What would bother me in my game is if there was a trend of a certain player constantly using meta knowledge ( knowledge that his character wouldn't reasonably have) to constantly get an advantage in every situation possible.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Maxperson]

It is, and I'm not engaging you in a semantic argument, so this will be my last post regarding traps that interacts with you.

If you're going to continue to bow out with crap like this, don't bother responding to other posts of mine. I don't enjoy people engaging in disingenuous discussions with me.

 

[Maxperson]

No need to debate definitions with you. You already admitted you know you can remove the possibility of "metagaming" of the sort under discussion as DM. You just choose not to. That's all I need to know.

I can remove the decisions of the PCs from the players, too. Just because I can do something, doesn't make it right, my responsibility OR something that I should do.

 

[iserith]

I can remove the decisions of the PCs from the players, too. Just because I can do something, doesn't make it right, my responsibility OR something that I should do.

Irrelevant to the discussion. I get what you'd rather do is set up situations where "metagaming" can occur and judge those who engage in them as "toddlers." As I said, that's all I need to know about you going forward. Thanks.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There is a line there somewhere, like if you got out your copy of the monster manual for every fight to see what a monster's strengths and weaknesses were, that would seem wrong.

Yeah, a pattern could show bad faith play as being the reason behind what in a single incident would appear nothing more than harmless role-play.

Where we differ seems to be that I consider us discussing a single instance as us discussing a single instance, and you stretch it out to being about a pattern you don't actually have enough data to support the existence of.

What would bother me in my game is if there was a trend of a certain player constantly using meta knowledge ( knowledge that his character wouldn't reasonably have) to constantly get an advantage in every situation possible.

Again, I have to point out that none of the things I've suggested characters could do and it not be metagaming are using meta knowledge.

Me knowing about trolls and fire and my character not having a clue and using fire for completely in-character reasons is me ignoring meta knowledge, not me using it.

 

[Campbell]

Did your character know trolls had a weakness to fire?

Here's the thing - there is no real way to tell. Characters have lived these rich lives of which we only get to see a part of. I see this situation as a golden opportunity to enrich the fiction and encourage the player to care more about the integrity of the fiction. Ask them how they learned trolls were vulnerable to fire. This gives them an opportunity to bring more life to their character and become more invested in the fiction.

For what it's worth I personally care deeply about the integrity of the fiction, and I want those I play with to care too. I can't force them to care though, and it is not my job when I'm running a game to force them to care. What I can do is have a conversation, player to player, about it and provide them with opportunities to invest themselves in the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

Irrelevant to the discussion. I get what you'd rather do is set up situations where "metagaming" can occur and judge those who engage in them as "toddlers." As I said, that's all I need to know about you going forward. Thanks.

I refuse to engage in the victim mentality. Here's a rather stark example of your argument at work.

The DM sets up a situation where metagaming can occur(A woman initiates an argument where violence can occur). A player engages in metagaming(the woman gets hit by her boyfriend). Your argument says that she and the DM are at fault and should bear the responsibility. My argument says the player and the boyfriend are responsible for their own actions, not me.

 

[machineelf]

Here's the thing - there is no real way to tell. Characters have lived these rich lives of which we only get to see a part of. I see this situation as a golden opportunity to enrich the fiction and encourage the player to care more about the integrity of the fiction. Ask them how they learned trolls were vulnerable to fire. This gives them an opportunity to bring more life to their character and become more invested in the fiction.

For what it's worth I personally care deeply about the integrity of the fiction, and I want those I play with to care too. I can't force them to care though, and it is not my job when I'm running a game to force them to care. What I can do is have a conversation, player to player, about it and provide them with opportunities to invest themselves in the fiction.

Right. I agree with you here. Aaron's DM can't read his mind. I have to admit to him though that if I knew he was a player with a good amount of playing experience who likely knew about a trolls weakness to fire (and many people do know that) and the first thing he did in a fight with one is to pick up a fiery log to attack it, it would raise my eyebrow.

I would not likely say anything, but it would seem awefully suspicious to me, and I would try to notice of I saw a pattern in future gameplay.

I don't know Aaron and I can't read his mind, but there are some players out there who, if they personally know a monster's weakness, can't help but to use that weakness and then later claim it was purely by chance they took that action. Stranger still when that action id's normally such a suboptimal one against all other monsters.

I'm not saying that's what Aaron did our that his DM handled it in the right way. But I understand the raising of the eyebrow.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

But I understand the raising of the eyebrow.

I don't. Why let this disturb your eyebrow at all?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I mean I think I get it. You may have a broader definition of role-playing than I do. People can play it however they want. They don't have to have a backstory. They don't have to have flaws or personality quirks. Heck, they don't even have to have a name for their character. They don't have to relate to NPCs the way their character, and all his quirks, would. Int and Wis and Char scores don't have to mean anything other than the mechanical effect they provide in skill checks and saving throws.

Wow, you definitely don't get it. At all. No matter what words I type, you are just concluding that I am (we are) talking about a game of pure mechanics, stripped of interesting character development and storytelling, aren't you?

Imagine if I just dismissed your version of roleplaying as "talking with a British accent and saying 'thou' and 'thee' a lot." Then after you carefully tried to explain about adopting a persona and trying to get inside that character's head, I replied, "Yeah, I get it. You're speaking in Old English and throwing in Monty Python jokes. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course..."

There are tons of different ways a person could "role play". My preferred way (for me and the games I enjoy) stick to the traditional way role playing has been understood in D&D from the beginning: your character has traits, and attributes and quirks that define him or her, and you play that role accordingly: hence, role playing.

You accuse me of having a narrow view of role playing. Fair. I guess I do, but my view its how role playing had been explained in D&D material since the start. Have you considered that your more broad view of the concept doesn't afford a lot of credit to the traditional understanding of the concept of role playing in D&D?

Do you only have adventures in "dungeons" because, you know, that's how D&D was explained (and named) from the beginning? Or have you realized that you can also have adventures in floating palaces, alternate planes, opulent cities, and pirate ships? As Bawylie has explained, the state-of-the-art of roleplaying has evolved a lot in 40 years.

Like you, I don't really care how others play at their own tables. Why this matters is that in this public forum...about roleplaying games...you and others repeatedly make false and offensive accusations that people who don't play like you are not roleplaying; that they're powergaming and/or stripping the game down to raw mechanics. We've tried to illuminate, but you don't seem interested. And that's fine, you can believe whatever you want. But if you are going to persist in your insulting belief please at least keep it to yourself.