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

[robus]

In my view, a player is free to establish what the character believes. If the player declares that the character is trying to recall useful lore, I may decide that calls for an ability check (as with any other fictional action declaration). I could decide that an action to recall lore is an automatic failure, but that circumstance will be rare indeed. I think if it's not an automatic success, it's at least worth a roll in almost all cases. Note, however, that an action based on knowledge that it is not established the character has is as valid as any other action declaration. I only need to know what you want to do and what you hope to accomplish to adjudicate - not how you arrived at the decision to do that (though of course you're welcome to share if you want).

There's a aesthetic purity to this that is very simple to grasp and easy to implement IMHO.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As a general question, do people discussing the "I get to decide that my character knows x fact" issue distinguish based on player knowledge? As far as I can see, it would be just as legitimate to decide that your character just knows how to stop a troll from regenerating, or which statue the treasure is hidden behind even if you as a player don't.

Great examples.

But you're conflating thinking you know something with knowing you know something.

So, for example, let's say you've read the published adventure and you "know" where a secret door is. If you use that knowledge, and the DM says, "Nope, sorry, you don't discover anything?" are you going to feel cheated? Or are you going to shrug and assume the DM has altered things? (I'm hoping your answer is B. If not then I'm not sure we are ever going to make progress here.)

You only thought you knew where a secret door was, but you were wrong. Note that nobody is preventing you from taking an action with your character. The only thing the DM adjudicates is the results.

Now back to your examples. If you're in my game and announce, "My character knows how to stop trolls from regenerating because when he was a wee lad he was friends with a mad scientists who told him the secret" (or whatever) I'm going to say, "Great. What do you do?" At that point you are free to take any action you want (and if it's really good I might even have it stop the trolls from regenerating). If it doesn't work, you are free to conclude the mad scientists lied to you, or whatever you like.

Same thing with the statue: go ahead and narrate all you want about how you "know" where the treasure is. The rubber meets the road when you pick a statue and look behind it.

But in all those cases I, the DM, am not dictating to you what actions you may take, or what thought process goes on in your character's head. That's all up to you. I simply control the effects your actions have on the game world.

And where does player agency in deciding what their character knows fall on that line?

Again, there is a difference between what you think you know, which is entirely up to you, and whether what you think you know is actually true in the game world.

 

[Maxperson]

DM's fault in my view for basing the difficulty of a challenge on not knowing about a creature, then showing one of the players the stat block.

Not all of us actively engage in the victim mentality. It's not our fault if the player does something that the player knows is wrong.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here's a question for everybody here:

Earlier there was an example about recalling the names of your own cousins, and whether a lore roll is required for that. I assume this was offered facetiously, but it might get at an interesting difference about how we view "truth" in our game worlds.

Let's say a player suddenly needs to know the names of his two cousins. Should the DM:
1) Tell him the names of his two cousins?
2) Ask him for the names of him two cousins?

Then let's up the ante: let's say he wants to know the name of an important courtier at court. Does he make it up, or does the DM?

My answer would be always yes in the first case, and yes unless it was an opportunity to bring in existing material in the second case. I tend to invite players to contribute to the fiction, outside of their own character, but I suspect that's not how everybody plays. And maybe that difference correlates to some other disagreements here.

What's your answer?

 

[Imaculata]

Here's a question for everybody here:

Earlier there was an example about recalling the names of your own cousins, and whether a lore roll is required for that. I assume this was offered facetiously, but it might get at an interesting difference about how we view "truth" in our game worlds.

Let's say a player suddenly needs to know the names of his two cousins. Should the DM:
1) Tell him the names of his two cousins?
2) Ask him for the names of him two cousins?

Then let's up the ante: let's say he wants to know the name of an important courtier at court. Does he make it up, or does the DM?

What's your answer?

I would ask my players in regards to their cousins. Their family is part of the their backstory. So unless they ask me to come up with names for them, this is where I would really appreciate input from the players.

But any other npc's, I make up myself. Because these characters may be important to the plot, so I definitely want to name them myself. And I'm the sort of DM that tends to have these names ready. If I believe that there's any chance an npc might become important, then he has a name long before the players ask me his name. When I work out a location, then I'll also make a list of all the important characters in that location.

While a collaborative process might be a lot of fun, I prefer to keep the design of these sorts of things for myself. And yes, I prepare a lot more than actually ends up in the campaign.

For example, the locations and people of the City of Vertesaux:

[TABLE="width: 800"]
[TR]
[TD]Locations
[/TD]
[TD]Characters[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The Marquis’ Manor
[/TD]
[TD]Marquis Nihel Marceau, Butler James Mannings, Lady Loretta Colomb, Lady Helene Lasserre, Captain Robert Travers.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lord Rousseaux’s Manor[/TD]
[TD]Lord Emile Rousseaux and Lady Marianne.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The Vertesaux royal naval museum[/TD]
[TD]Alfred Silva[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rue Joly (pleasure houses)[/TD]
[TD]Epiphanie Sion[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The Kirbawa forge (blacksmith & siege weapons)[/TD]
[TD]Jean-philippe Lafay and Grégoire Paulet[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The Vertesaux grand library and church[/TD]
[TD]Father Francis Maurel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Charpentier Ruharh (wood worker)[/TD]
[TD]Master carpenter Mathias Caspar[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tailleur De Pierre Dauphin(Stone mason)[/TD]
[TD]Master stone mason Frederique Dauphin[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cape Joy Shipworks (ship repairs)[/TD]
[TD]Matthieu Bataille[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Le Jardin Des Cygnes (restaurant and inn)[/TD]
[TD]Armandine Fabre[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Petit café Aux Bons Copains (tavern)[/TD]
[TD]Jean-jacques Piton[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Saint Valenz arms and ammunition (weapons)[/TD]
[TD]Lucien Valette and Lora Valette and the Baron[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The Vertesaux brewery (liquor)[/TD]
[TD]Humbert Boudaud[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Place Saint-Anna’s (market)[/TD]
[TD]Various merchants, Abdul Zafar the Enchanter[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Saint-Anna d’Avenna (church of Avenna)[/TD]
[TD]Father Matthieu Bonnel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Saint-Anna’s cemetery[/TD]
[TD]Gravedigger Andre Porte[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Saint-Germain memorial church[/TD]
[TD]Father Octave Pauly, Brother Henri, Brother Marino[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hospital Saint-Valenz (healer)[/TD]
[TD]Cosette Barrat[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Vertesaux Memorial Plaza (statue)[/TD]
[TD]Old Félix Allemand[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Vertesaux Harbor[/TD]
[TD]Sir Bastien Roch, harbor master Pierre-Yves Barbeau[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Saint Valenz royal school of architecture[/TD]
[TD]Architect Jean-marc Perraudin, assistant Marie-martine Peres[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The magister of the green coast (Magic Store)[/TD]
[TD]Magister Aldric Flamant, apprentice Chantal Delcourt[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Da Costa Manor (abandoned)[/TD]
[TD]None but ghosts
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[CydKnight]

Here's a question for everybody here:

Earlier there was an example about recalling the names of your own cousins, and whether a lore roll is required for that. I assume this was offered facetiously, but it might get at an interesting difference about how we view "truth" in our game worlds.

Let's say a player suddenly needs to know the names of his two cousins. Should the DM:
1) Tell him the names of his two cousins?
2) Ask him for the names of him two cousins?

Then let's up the ante: let's say he wants to know the name of an important courtier at court. Does he make it up, or does the DM?

My answer would be always yes in the first case, and yes unless it was an opportunity to bring in existing material in the second case. I tend to invite players to contribute to the fiction, outside of their own character, but I suspect that's not how everybody plays. And maybe that difference correlates to some other disagreements here.

What's your answer?

I am fine with either scenario with the stipulation you noted. It really doesn't matter. Run your game the way you wish.

 

[iserith]

Not all of us actively engage in the victim mentality. It's not our fault if the player does something that the player knows is wrong.

It's only wrong at your table. For reasons that elude some of us. Or, in some cases, don't elude us but still don't make much sense, especially when the DM has so much control over "metagaming" occurring at all. That is what we're discussing.

DM cares about "metagaming." DM shares the custom stat block with the player. DM is either stupid or is creating a little "metagaming" purity test. Neither of those possibilities speaks well of the DM.

 

[iserith]

There's a aesthetic purity to this that is very simple to grasp and easy to implement IMHO.

Yeah, easy, right? Almost like this game was made for ages 12 and up.

 

[iserith]

Here's a question for everybody here:

Earlier there was an example about recalling the names of your own cousins, and whether a lore roll is required for that. I assume this was offered facetiously, but it might get at an interesting difference about how we view "truth" in our game worlds.

Let's say a player suddenly needs to know the names of his two cousins. Should the DM:
1) Tell him the names of his two cousins?
2) Ask him for the names of him two cousins?

Then let's up the ante: let's say he wants to know the name of an important courtier at court. Does he make it up, or does the DM?

My answer would be always yes in the first case, and yes unless it was an opportunity to bring in existing material in the second case. I tend to invite players to contribute to the fiction, outside of their own character, but I suspect that's not how everybody plays. And maybe that difference correlates to some other disagreements here.

What's your answer?

I'm fine with the player coming up with the names of the cousins, but I'll help if they need it. My help comes at the cost of those names being hilarious though and the player having to live with whatever jokes arise from it.

With regard to the courtier, I'm not opposed to the player coming up with the name provided it has not already been established in play. Generally speaking, however, "I ask around the household guard to find the name of that important courtier at court..." (or whatever) kicks the conversation over to the DM in which case the DM will be the one to provide the name, if the PC's effort is successful. "What is the name of that important courtier" asked of the DM is likely not to get a answer from me unless the name has already been established in play and the player forgot. I will instead ask the player to rephrase their request in the form of an action the character takes to gather or recall the information the player wants.

 

[robus]

Yeah, easy, right? Almost like this game was made for ages 12 and up.

I laugh not because what you wrote is funny but because of how heavily many of us seem to want to weigh this game down.