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

[Imaculata]

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.

Hilarious character names are the best names. Because at least they are memorable.

A heck of a lot better than some convoluted long elven name that no one remembers or knows how to spell.

 

[Caliban]

Hilarious character names are the best names. Because at least they are memorable.

A heck of a lot better than some convoluted long elven name that no one remembers or knows how to spell.

There's something about gnomes...I just can't resist making gnome pun names for them.

Gnome Gnames:

Gnome Chompski (Gnome barbarian who bites people)
Gnome N. Clay Ture (Gnome cleric, was in charge of naming gnomes in his village before becoming and adventurer)
Gnome De'Plume (Gnome master of disguise - either a rogue/swashbuckler or one with the Entertainer background)

 

[Maxperson]

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?

It all depends in circumstances. The DM shouldn't always do either one of those. I generally have the players set up their own backgrounds, so cousins, if there were any, would have been detailed there. If that background were somehow lost, I would just tell him the names of the cousins if he forgot. On the other hand, I have free reign to play around with their backgrounds once I get them. It's possible that I might come up with a twin brother of the PC's father who was taken at birth and is unknown to the family. In that case, when it came time I would tell him the name of the cousins.

The issue that is relevant to this discussion, though, is if the player learned of the names of the cousins prior to the PC learning them and had the PC mention his cousins by name, as his cousins. That would be metagaming.

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?

I do. The players don't control the game world outside of their PCs, and with DM approval, in their backgrounds.

 

[Maxperson]

It's only wrong at your table.

That's a given. We've discussed this before and you know that I have agreed that it would not be wrong at your table. I'm not sure why you felt the need to say that.

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.

It's wrong for the DM to be blamed for a player engaging in metagaming, and it would be wrong for him to be forced alter his game to prevent a player from metagaming. Players are responsible for their own actions, not the DM.

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.

You keep saying that, but it's full of assumption. He didn't say he shared the stat block with the player. He said the player read it. It might have been accidentally seen. It might have been shared by the DM's mischievous 5 year old sister. Maybe the player snuck a peek. I find it telling that you went with the DM being at fault as your default assumption.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The DM shouldn't always do either one of those. I generally have the players set up their own backgrounds, so cousins, if there were any, would have been detailed there. If that background were somehow lost, I would just tell him the names of the cousins if he forgot.

So you would expect players to specify cousins in their backgrounds, when they created the characters, and if they failed to do so then no such cousins exist?

How extensive is the family tree supposed to be specified?

And I believe this question is actually very relevant to the discussion, because I suspect there's some correlation between one's views on this sort of metagaming and one's beliefs about what in-game 'truth' is, and who gets to create it.

 

[Maxperson]

So you would expect players to specify cousins in their backgrounds, when they created the characters, and if they failed to do so then no such cousins exist?

Expect? No. Do they? Yes. They're fairly detailed with their backgrounds. It's rather nice.

And I believe this question is actually very relevant to the discussion, because I suspect there's some correlation between one's views on this sort of metagaming and one's beliefs about what in-game 'truth' is, and who gets to create it.

I don't think so. For example, if I played a game tomorrow where the players could control things like the name of the courtier, that still wouldn't give the PC knowledge of that name. It's not about who gets to control game content. It's about what the PC would know or wouldn't know.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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?

My answer is similar to your own.

I'm always interested in the players taking part in making up the details of the campaigns we play (it shows, and sometimes creates, more buy-in to the game), so I'd likely ask for player input on the names even if they were doing as I like them to do and describing their character asking around for the name rather than asking me "What's that guy's name?" out-of-character.

 

[Bigsta]

Hilarious character names are the best names. Because at least they are memorable.

A heck of a lot better than some convoluted long elven name that no one remembers or knows how to spell.

In a Numenara campaign my Nano was named:

"Mystical" Mike Hardcastle

When going undercover, he went by the alias

"Normal" John Softcottage

 

[iserith]

I find it telling that you went with the DM being at fault as your default assumption.

It is telling. Because the DM is responsible for setting the stage for it to happen. I as DM would take personal responsibility for it. Others, I'm guessing, not so much.

 

[Maxperson]

It is telling. Because the DM is responsible for setting the stage

That's true.

for it to happen.

That's false. I set the stage for roleplay and interaction with the game world. I do not set the stage for metagaming. Setting the stage for metagaming implies that I want it to happen. I don't. Blaming the DM for setting the stage for metagaming, is like blaming the bank manager for setting the stage for an employee to rob the vault. It's bupkis.

I as DM would take personal responsibility for it. Others, I'm guessing, not so much.

Others realize that they have no true responsibility for it. If you choose to take responsibility for something you are not responsible for, that's your choice.