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

[Cap'n Kobold]

Not just that, but it becomes unclear where the line is for what the player does get to arbitrate about what their character knows and what they don't.

That line has always been unclear. I think that most groups would be fine with you deciding that your character knows that elves don't need to sleep. I think that most groups wouldn't be fine with you deciding that your character knows the specific and unusual weakness of the BBEG of an adventure, particularly if discovering that weakness was the focus of much of the plot.
The "does my character know that fire is effective against trolls" issue is the subject of much more discussion because both sides are able to polarise it.

In the end it probably boils down more to 'how common are trolls in that region' and less about whether its OK for every/any character to use the knowledge that their player knows/can look up.

I can't decide what my character knows about trolls - do I get to decide what my character knows about elves? Should I roll dice to see if my character has ever actually heard the name of the continent they live on?

Should you roll dice to see if your character knows about a specific event in the history of the other continent of the world?

Ask your DM.
Seriously, if you're not sure where the acceptable point to draw the line between IC and OOC knowledge for your group/DM is, ask.

I'm not going to be surprised if I get told that is being ridiculous, but I genuinely don't know where anyone besides me draws that line unless they tell me. Because we all think of things that seem obvious to us as "should be obvious" to everyone else, even though that's not even kind of the way things actually work.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I have my character openly question the validity of the in-character information by asking "Where did you read or hear that!?".

When they make up, and I know we haven't been there as a party (if it was like the library at Candle Keep) I ask when they did, and if it is "In my character's background..." and it isn't - I pointedly ask the GM if I am allowed to make up about what my character knows on the fly whenever I want as well?

What if the person responds with something that seems objectively improbable, but is great storytelling? And maybe that further defines their character? Would you "reward" the storytelling by accepting the reason?

And, if so, doesn't that demonstrate that allowing players to actively participate in the weaving of the story has value? And if that's the case, why restrict it to "you can only know stuff if you have a good enough reason"? Why not just let them narrate it: sometimes it's good, sometimes it's less interesting. What's the harm? Because it will "reduce the challenge via metagaming"? Whatever. The DM can just add more trolls, or more undead, or whatever.

... but if the GM persists, I start having my character claim to know everything that I know about monsters and magical items etc. until I am called up on it and then point to the original metagame abuse as justification.

That wouldn't bother me at all. Unless you started saying, "My character knows this monsters weakness because he knows everything, so...uh...tell me what it is."

Metagaming is not as hard to spot, or as justifiable as many claim it is. It isn't really hard to spot and it IS an abuse. What is the point of a character having taken points in Knowledge Arcana who roles the dice when she's asking the GM from information on a spell when the half-orc barbarian player is spouting the range and burst radius of it "cos I got hit by wun wunce..."

So that when nobody at the table knows the answer there's a chance the DM will tell you anyway. Among myriad other uses.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think that most groups wouldn't be fine with you deciding that your character knows the specific and unusual weakness of the BBEG of an adventure, particularly if discovering that weakness was the focus of much of the plot.

Yes, of course. I don't think anybody here is arguing that you should give away key 'secrets' if somebody else at the table is not in on it, and would have fun solving it. That's called "being a jerk", not "metagaming". It's only when everybody knows the BBEG's weakness that it's silly (imo) for everybody to pretend they don't know.

At the same time, if the fun of an adventure depends on secrets, that's a design flaw. Why design something that's susceptible to an honest mistake? "Oops...sorry; I thought everybody knew that. Guess there's no point finishing."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes, of course. I don't think anybody here is arguing that you should give away key 'secrets' if somebody else at the table is not in on it, and would have fun solving it. That's called "being a jerk", not "metagaming". It's only when everybody knows the BBEG's weakness that it's silly (imo) for everybody to pretend they don't know.

At the same time, if the fun of an adventure depends on secrets, that's a design flaw. Why design something that's susceptible to an honest mistake? "Oops...sorry; I thought everybody knew that. Guess there's no point finishing."

I don't think that anybody here is arguing that a well-educated character would have to roll to see if they know what the name of the continent that they are living on is either.

 

[iserith]

In my games, players roll when there is uncertainty as to whether their characters can recall lore. A player might say something like, "Drawing upon my time as a sailor, I try to recall what I know about pirates in the waters around the island of Lantan." If I'm not certain the character can recall that, I ask for a roll, giving the player the information he or she seeks on a success or something interesting (but not necessarily useful) on a failure. Alternatively, I might decide a character automatically recalls the information the player wants based on context. I don't rule automatic failure in these situations - you either succeed or the dice decide.

But if a player has his or her character say to the other PCs "I hear pirates are known to prey upon ships in the waters near Lantan, so let's prepare accordingly..." (or words to that effect) because the player knows a lot about Forgotten Realms, then that's okay too. I have no role in saying what a character believes as DM - I can only say what happens when he or she tries to do something. Further, what the player says the character believes may or may not be true. I might not have any plans whatsoever to include pirates in my adventure. So it's smart play for the player to try to verify assumptions via in-game actions rather than potentially act on bad assumptions, in this case, expending resources preparing for something that isn't actually a concern.

 

[Imaculata]

I get where you are coming from, as I'm not a fan of the general idea of a spell that lasts 24 hours.

But this specific case, I'm absolutely in love with that it lasts 24 hours because of what that means for what I need to do as a DM in order to facilitate prolonged underwater adventuring.

In prior editions, I'd have to hand out satchels full of potions that provide water breathing because the spell just didn't last long enough or cover enough targets for anyone playing a spell caster to be entertained by the prospect of using spell slots to cast enough water breathing to facilitate the adventure - and often that meant also having to give the "Yeah... it's magic, just don't think about it too much" answer to players that questioned how they were managing to drink a potion while underwater without drinking enough sea water to have issues arise from it.

And yet now all I need to do is facilitate a ritual caster having the spell and everything - even resting while underwater - is taken care of, and the party can be off on adventures beneath the waves for as long as they want/need to be.

Funny enough, you can consume a potion underwater in real life. But I get what you're saying. You could basically have underwater dungeons that have no air what so ever. I think it opens up some options for DM's, but it also closes some others off.

I like the idea of having a dungeon with short underwater sections, where the players have to locate pockets of air. And for that purpose, the older editions had a version of the spell that worked better in my opinion. For the more prolonged underwater adventures, I've added home brew diving suits to my setting. But of course the trade off is that a diving suit is basically like having leather armor. And I also added diving bells, bathyspheres, etc.

I think it would have been better if the spell still lasted only an hour or so, but it was a party wide spell. So instead of it affecting up to 10 people, just let it affect people close to you (about 4 or 5).

But I don't want to derail the thread too much.

But if a player has his or her character say to the other PCs "I hear pirates are known to prey upon ships in the waters near Lantan, so let's prepare accordingly..." (or words to that effect) because the player knows a lot about Forgotten Realms, then that's okay too. I have no role in saying what a character believes as DM - I can only say what happens when he or she tries to do something. Further, what the player says the character believes may or may not be true. I might not have any plans whatsoever to include pirates in my adventure. So it's smart play for the player to try to verify assumptions via in-game actions rather than potentially act on bad assumptions, in this case, expending resources preparing for something that isn't actually a concern.

I would allow this as well, but I might correct an incorrect assumption by adding something to the effect of: "-But that was true up to a few years ago, you are unsure if pirates are still active today".

I had a some what similar situation happen right after the a fore mentioned catacombs adventure. One of the players had been touched by a mummy and failed his save, so one of the players said:

Player 1: I think you might have mummy rot now. We'd better find a way to cure that fast!

Me: Player 1, why don't you go ahead and make a knowledge check for that.

Player 1: *rolls and fails*

Me: You are not sure what the signs are of mummy rot, and so you are unsure if your companion is affected by this supernatural disease that you've heard of. Further more, you do not know if all mummies spread the same disease. But what you DO know, is that there's an important bishop in town right now who should have the answers.

See in this case I had changed the disease to something less severe, and more fitting with the aquatic setting of the campaign. Had he succeeded, he would have known for sure that it wasn't mummy rot, but a different supernatural disease.

Mummyrot is one of those gotcha mechanics, that unless you know what it is, will totally destroy your character. I'm fine with the players assuming that their character knows what it is. Because as a DM, I also drop hints that a character is affected by a supernatural disease. For example, I described to the player how he felt weakened, and how he could see the mummy in reflections grabbing him by the arm. I made it perfectly clear that he had been cursed, because I don't like gotchas.

 

[iserith]

I would allow this as well, but I might correct an incorrect assumption by adding something to the effect of: "-But that was true up to a few years ago, you are unsure if pirates are still active today".

I don't see it as the role of the DM to correct incorrect assumptions unless I think a player hasn't understood something that I previously established. That's about correcting a misapprehension though rather than a bad assumption. My response to:

Player 1: I think you might have mummy rot now. We'd better find a way to cure that fast!

Would be to say nothing or, perhaps, ask "Okay, what do you do?"

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

That line has always been unclear.

Not always. In my group, and I believe in [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s as well, the line is very clear because it is drawn in such a way that the player is allowed to arbitrate whatever their character knows from whatever information it is possible that their character might know - including that should the DM mention a bit of information the player didn't know, and the player asks "Would my character know that?" the answer from the DM would be either "You tell me." or "Sorry, no, it is literally impossible for your character to know that."

I think that most groups wouldn't be fine with you deciding that your character knows the specific and unusual weakness of the BBEG of an adventure, particularly if discovering that weakness was the focus of much of the plot.

I agree entirely with what [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] said on this topic.

Should you roll dice to see if your character knows about a specific event in the history of the other continent of the world?

If, and only if, I have decided I am unsure whether my character knows about it or not.

Should I roll dice to see if my character knows the names of his 2nd cousins?

Ask your DM.

In this discussion, I kind of am asking the DM (sure, not my DM, since I don't actually have one with any amount of regularity, being the primary DM of my group as I am). But it's a very tricky question to get straight information on, because the conversation is constantly sidetracked by things like me and the DM agreeing that no particular knowledge was needed to take a particular action, but then the DM insisting that by taking that action my character was using knowledge he doesn't have.

Seriously, if you're not sure where the acceptable point to draw the line between IC and OOC knowledge for your group/DM is, ask.

That much I agree with.

 

[Imaculata]

I agree with almost everything you have said here Aaron, and with Iserith too.

I have a player in my group, who plays a priest. And occasionally he'll make presumptions regarding monsters, deities, or other game situations, based on his experience as a player. But he only does this in regards to things that he assumes his character as a priest would know. And I have no problem with that. In fact, as a DM I prefer to help him play his character this way, by giving him extra information that I think a priest would also know, and thus correcting anything that he may have gotten wrong (since my campaign setting isn't vanilla D&D). I think by giving him this extra information, I give him more agency. It allows him as a priest to advise party members on matters of religion and some supernatural things, like undead. Similarly I would pass some clues to the Druid on matters of nature, and to their captain on matters of piracy. It allows them to have their own niche knowledge specialty, which helps the role playing. And if I consider some knowledge to be some what obscure, only then do I ask for a roll.

 

[Lanefan]

Not just that, but it becomes unclear where the line is for what the player does get to arbitrate about what their character knows and what they don't.

I can't decide what my character knows about trolls - do I get to decide what my character knows about elves? Should I roll dice to see if my character has ever actually heard the name of the continent they live on?

In all cases, situationally dependent.

If your background is that of a well-educated and-or somewhat worldly type (or other factors combine to indicate such), all is good; and hey - you might have even heard the troll story too. If your background is that of an illiterate farmer who has never gone more than 20 miles from home then hells yeah you're rolling.

I'm not going to be surprised if I get told that is being ridiculous, but I genuinely don't know where anyone besides me draws that line unless they tell me.

In fairness, the line is probably going to be in a different place not only at each table, but for each given situation within that table as noted just above.

There's a flip side too: often character knowledge exceeds player knowledge, or the players have forgotten things their characters would remember (in many but not all cases because it's been a week or two for the players but 15 minutes for the characters); and in these cases the players are brought up to speed. One example from my current game: the players constantly forget the name of the game world even though the characters have all from one source or another known it for ages. So they ask, I remind them, and we carry on.

Yes, of course. I don't think anybody here is arguing that you should give away key 'secrets' if somebody else at the table is not in on it, and would have fun solving it. That's called "being a jerk", not "metagaming".

I almost get the sense that some here are arguing for just this...the ones who in their session-0 state metagaming is fair game and if the player knows it, the character knows it.

At the same time, if the fun of an adventure depends on secrets, that's a design flaw. Why design something that's susceptible to an honest mistake? "Oops...sorry; I thought everybody knew that. Guess there's no point finishing."

By "secrets" you mean, I assume, things that once were somewhat secret but are now well known among gamers e.g. troll-and-fire. Because every adventure in one way or another depends on secrets - be it secret information, or secret rooms, or secret effects, or secret items, etc. - and by no means are all of them design flaws.

But yes, regrettably, these days designing an adventure around the secret that trolls don't do well against fire has become kinda pointless. And that is a bug, not a feature.

I have a player in my group, who plays a priest. And occasionally he'll make presumptions regarding monsters, deities, or other game situations, based on his experience as a player. But he only does this in regards to things that he assumes his character as a priest would know.

Which means the player is self-limiting the character's knowledge...I can (with some reservation) kinda get behind that; and good on the player.

It's when they don't self-limit like that - going back to the trap example again but let's change it up a bit (water is too easily beaten in 5e ): make it a trap where the away scout falls 30' into a pit of acid; the players know this but the characters do not and can not. Party happen to have a scroll of Protection From Acid on board - one-shot, gives everyone within 10' acid immunity for half an hour. While searching for the scout they reach a pristine hallway and don't (or can't) for whatever reason notice the trap. Do eyebrows go up if only now does the party use the scroll, even though there may still be half the adventure left or more?

=========

As for the underwater adventure question: while it's quite true that the 5e version of Water Breathing allows for ongoing underwater adventures* (which is just fine; kinda cool in fact) I still maintain it's a bit broken the rest of the time as by in effect being permanent it outright neutralizes what might otherwise be a legitimate obstacle and sometimes hazard. It also kinda ruins maritime ship-board campaigns or adventures as perhaps the biggest ongoing hazard there is somehow going overboard. Can't swim? Who cares, you can't drown either.

* - just occurred to me now - can S-component spells be cast underwater?

Lan-"Akrayna. The world's name is Akrayna."-efan