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

[Lanefan]

My issue as a player is: Who are you to say what my character knows or doesn't know? Maybe I've been to this area before. Maybe I met a man that told me about trolls and fire.

Absolutely; and that's what - in absence of any other background or evidence pro or con - random dice rolls are for. Maybe you do know what's up; or you've been here before; or you've heard about trolls around a campfire somewhere. Maybe not. But I absolutely disagree with the notion of simply being able to assume the character knows these things just because the player knows.

It's not about likelihood. People get struck by lightning. Airplanes crash. Just because there is a small probability of something happening doesn't mean it didn't or that my character should be judged on how likely it is that someone would know that or do that or have been in that situation.

People get struck by lightning, sometimes even from a clear sky without warning. Given that, how often do you (or I, for that matter) prepare for it before going outside?

Didn't think so.

Lan-"clear-sky lightning: the ultimate real-world 'gotcha' event"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] is that map in post #296 one of your own design, or one taken from a published module? I ask as it's brilliantly done, and if it's yours I'd like to compliment you on it.

Lanefan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

People get struck by lightning, sometimes even from a clear sky without warning. Given that, how often do you (or I, for that matter) prepare for it before going outside?

I, and numerous people I've known in my lifetime, behave in certain ways during storms to make the likelihood that lightning does strike us as low as we can... so, not really sure what point you are actually making unless it can be summed up as "different people have different levels of caution about different potential happenings." (Have to throw in that last bit because some of the people I know that reduce their chances of being struck by lightning seem almost reckless in the face of other potential dangers, such as that they not only drive an automobile regularly, but also speed and talk on the phone while driving.)

 

[Maxperson]

I, and numerous people I've known in my lifetime, behave in certain ways during storms to make the likelihood that lightning does strike us as low as we can... so, not really sure what point you are actually making unless it can be summed up as "different people have different levels of caution about different potential happenings." (Have to throw in that last bit because some of the people I know that reduce their chances of being struck by lightning seem almost reckless in the face of other potential dangers, such as that they not only drive an automobile regularly, but also speed and talk on the phone while driving.)

Not sure why you're conflating a clear sky with a storm. Your Strawman doesn't help you make your point. You really should respond to the actual point being made and not change the circumstances of the argument before responding.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Not sure why you're conflating a clear sky with a storm.

I'm clearly not.

Your Strawman doesn't help you make your point.

I'm not making a strawman - I'm considering the idea that there is literally no evidence a character might have that gives them reason, or literally no reason to do a thing without certain evidence, to be the strawman, and ignoring it.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not making a strawman - I'm considering the idea that there is literally no evidence a character might have that gives them reason, or literally no reason to do a thing without certain evidence, to be the strawman, and ignoring it.

Where I'm saying that rather than the strawman, it's kind of the point here.

Getting back to D&D: if a character has no in-game* evidence** suggesting Water Breathing might be useful why would she cast it?

* - as opposed to out-of-game e.g. sitting at the table while the away scout finds the water hazard the hard way

** - either through there really being no evidence or through having failed to notice such evidence as is present.

Take it a step further: in games where you need to prepare spells ahead of time would anyone have even studied/prayed for Water Breathing that morning?

Now, if the party is able to figure out what happened to the scout be it by scrying, divination spells, a companion scout reporting in, or whatever then - obviously - player knowledge and character knowledge mostly synch up and things proceed from there. But the effort has to be made, even if the players already know the answer.

Lanefan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Getting back to D&D: if a character has no in-game* evidence** suggesting Water Breathing might be useful why would she cast it?

Because, firstly, having "no in-game evidence" is usually a case of the DM deciding that it is uncertain that the evidence be noticed or be certainly unnoticed, when neither of those make sense. With the case of water, putting whether or not someone realizes there is water present somewhere nearby in a dungeon environment in the realm of uncertain has results which appear to me as thought the Wisdom (Perception) check called for was to determine whether or not the character even has a sense of smell at the time.

But that, to me at least, comes down to whether the DM is trying to create a "gotcha" moment or not. If they aren't, then the "has no evidence" situation isn't likely to actually be the case.

Secondly, there is the mater of precautionary behavior. No evidence is needed to behave in a precautionary way, so the reason the character thinks casting water breathing might be useful enough to take the time to cast it doesn't have to be anything more than knowing that water does exist and as a result of existing might be encountered.

To me, at least, the reasoning that suggests characters can't take precaution without evidence that what they have taken precaution against seems equal to the hypothetical claims that I acknowledge no one has made that it is "unlikely" or "unbelievable" or "unrealistic" that anyone keeps a roadside emergency kit in their car, unless they know their car is prone to breaking down.

Now, if the party is able to figure out what happened to the scout be it by scrying, divination spells, a companion scout reporting in, or whatever then - obviously - player knowledge and character knowledge mostly synch up and things proceed from there. But the effort has to be made, even if the players already know the answer.

Forcing positive knowledge that your course of action is correct to be had is an artificial restriction - the character does not have to know they have the right answer to choose an answer. You are getting distracted by what the player knows, and are thought policing the player rather than only concerning yourself with whether the character is or isn't acting on knowledge they don't have. There is no other explanation for insisting an action that doesn't require any special knowledge on the part of the character is out of line.

 

[machineelf]

Btw, is the challenge of a dungeon completely negated when the players expect undead, and it turns out, yeah it is undead?

For me, there's more to the challenge of a dungeon than just the type of enemies they'll face. The players could look up the exact stats of all the monsters in the dungeon, and bring all the anti-undead weaponry in the world, and they still wouldn't be completely prepared for what I have in store for them.

View attachment 81238

Here is the map of the catacombs from my example. The players can prepare all they want, but they don't know the dungeon is half flooded, thus halving their movement speed, or that there are underwater mummies waiting in ambush in various rooms. They don't know any of the traps or secret tunnels, they'll still have to overcome all the water hazards and swimming sections. And they don't know how to deal with the main threat that lurks in the vault at the end (with all the creepy black roots extending out of it).

So by all means, bring all the holy water and anti undead spells you want. And if I feel the dungeon is too easy, I can just raise the difficulty a little. No meta gaming is going to change the difficulty of the dungeon here.

This is a great looking map. Did you create it yourself?

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

Er...er... [biting virtual tongue so as not to get banned] ...ouch!

Challenges that aren't to the player still are to the character; and if you see solving those in-character challenges as 'gratuitous play-acting' then...well...can't help you.

Again, to the character it *is* a genuine challenge, even if the player has seen it all before; and it's down to the player to play the character accordingly. From the player side the challenge might be working out how *this* particular character, with (hopefully) its own outlook on life/alignment/personality/traits/whatever that's different from his previous characters, handles the in-game challenge in character and does so in an innovative - and maybe not always perfect or correct or optimal - way.

Entertainment, lads and lasses! Why else do we do this?

Lanefan

In terms of the game, there is no challenge to the character. The challenge always goes to the player. So what you're doing here is presenting a challenge to your players that they're not allowed to use their skills and knowledge to solve unless the DM tells them they can based on what the DM judges the character "would" do. If they are not allowed to, then the difficulty of the challenge goes up (sometimes) because some otherwise viable solutions are forbidden. Anyone who doesn't do this is, to some, not roleplaying or is a filthy "metagamer" or "powergamer."

Contrast this with someone like me who designs and presents a challenge where I expect players to use their skills and knowledge - because this is a game. And when they do use their skills and knowledge to reduce the difficulty of a challenge, I don't judge them for doing so. I know they're roleplaying because they are making choices their characters could make in such situations. To me, there is no "your character will, would, or must do this." That is not for me to judge and I don't know why anyone would want to put themselves in the position to judge that. (Though I can speculate, but none of the reasons are very flattering.)

 

[Satyrn]

Again, to the character it *is* a genuine challenge, even if the player has seen it all before; and it's down to the player to play the character accordingly. From the player side the challenge might be working out how *this* particular character, with (hopefully) its own outlook on life/alignment/personality/traits/whatever that's different from his previous characters, handles the in-game challenge in character and does so in an innovative - and maybe not always perfect or correct or optimal - way.

Entertainment, lads and lasses! Why else do we do this?

That sort of playing doesn't sound like it would be fun for me.