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

[Imaculata]

Minor things like locking my house and car(which actually locks itself) are equivalent to my telling the players not to metagame and incentivising that sort of roleplay. Those are minor prevention techniques.

And yet to me it sounds like telling someone not to steal your car, and leaving the car door wide open, with the key already in the ignition.

It sounds like you are telling your players not to metagame, and yet taking no steps to make metagaming a none-issue. Why not do both? Take the steps to make metagaming no longer affect the game, so you don't have to warn your players at all.

The latter is how I run my campaigns. I tell my players not to worry about metagaming, and ensure them that I will do my best to defy their expectations, and keep them on their toes. Nothing in my campaign will be predictable, and I throw in custom monsters, and change existing monsters, so there's no difference between what the new players know about my monsters (which is nothing), and what the experienced players think they know from their years of playing.

I agree with Iserith that the game by its very nature seems set up to encourage metagaming. The game has a lot of gotcha mechanics to it, where players are forced to separate their knowledge as a player, from their knowledge as their character. Perhaps to a lesser degree now, than in older editions. But its still there. I don't get why it is still a thing.

 

[Shasarak]

I know I am a little late to the conversation but I have no problem with the rest of the group knowing about "the old man" because I have no real interest going through the same description multiple times to people who were already there to hear it the first time.

I do have an issue with party infighting though and I would most likely say something no mater what side of the screen I was on.

As for the old "going off alone to scout" well maybe the Player just needs to lose a few characters before he learns not to go off alone to scout but it would be amusing if a DM told me I had to go off or face the wrath of meta-gaming.

 

[Lanefan]

Wait, you don't run 5E? Do you play 5E?

*Sent to Lan-I never play the game but I've posted 6233 times on its forum-efan*

Doesn't mean I don't know anything about it...

 

[Imaculata]

I know I am a little late to the conversation but I have no problem with the rest of the group knowing about "the old man" because I have no real interest going through the same description multiple times to people who were already there to hear it the first time.

In all fairness, the sort of meta-gaming under discussion is a little bit more severe than the DM not having to repeat the same npc-description twice.

Lets say for example that there's a witch who has offered to help the party in their quest. One of the players (probably the rogue) decides to go to her house alone, steps on a trapdoor, and is dropped into a dungeon by the treacherous old crone.

The rest of the party visits the same witch at a later time, unaware of the witch's betrayal and trapdoor. Should the players pretend their characters are ignorant? Or are they allowed to act upon their knowledge as players that the witch is going to betray them too?

 

[Shasarak]

The latter is how I run my campaigns. I tell my players not to worry about metagaming, and ensure them that I will do my best to defy their expectations, and keep them on their toes. Nothing in my campaign will be predictable, and I throw in custom monsters, and change existing monsters, so there's no difference between what the new players know about my monsters (which is nothing), and what the experienced players think they know from their years of playing.

By making the campaign unpredictable then you would just force me to have to meta meta-game which honestly is just like meta-gaming but takes more time and is much more annoying.

 

[Shasarak]

In all fairness, the sort of meta-gaming under discussion is a little bit more severe than the DM not having to repeat the same npc-description twice.

Lets say for example that there's a witch who has offered to help the party in their quest. One of the players (probably the rogue) decides to go to her house alone, steps on a trapdoor, and is dropped into a dungeon by the treacherous old crone.

The rest of the party visits the same witch at a later time, unaware of the witch's betrayal and trapdoor. Should the players pretend their characters are ignorant? Or are they allowed to act upon their knowledge as players that the witch is going to betray them too?

It would be difficult to justify why an "innocent" old woman who needs help from the party even had time to monologue before being cut down.

And on the other hand if she did offer something more tangible then xp, maybe the Player of the Rogue just needs to learn his lesson about wandering off alone. You know that would never have happened if the Player had just meta-gamed instead of roleplaying his character to his doom, right?

 

[Lanefan]

You are using a very narrow (and frankly out-dated) definition of roleplaying. Which is fine, if that's what you enjoy, but you're missing out on a richer, more immersive experience.

This seems like a very old and outdated view on metagaming to me. I think what really matters is if the game is still fair.

To both of you: neither the definitions of roleplaying nor metagaming are outdated unless you decide they are...which it seems you have. Many others have not.
[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] I think missing out on immersion, depth and richness is more likely if metagaming is rampant, not less.
[MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] your point about the game remaining fair is well taken; as is your unquoted point about the DM metagaming against the party...which is to me equally as undesireable. This is where using pre-published adventure modules can be a boon - it is what it is regardless of what characters get thrown at it, and the DM just runs it like she's told to by the module. Even then there's still many ways a DM can metagame the party e.g. having foes use combat tactics she knows the party can't handle...or too easily can handle. I know when this comes up for me, where I know the foes have an option open to them that'll slaughter the party and another that's much less optimal but no way of knowing which is which, I'll just roll a random die to see which one they try first.

You're describing metagaming as if someone is cheating on his exam.

Not a bad parallel to draw, that.

As if there is any ill will involved

Maybe not true ill-will most of the time, but metagaming is almost always an attempt - intentional or otherwise - to gain an advantage over the game.

Lanefan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Lets say for example that there's a witch who has offered to help the party in their quest. One of the players (probably the rogue) decides to go to her house alone, steps on a trapdoor, and is dropped into a dungeon by the treacherous old crone.

The rest of the party visits the same witch at a later time, unaware of the witch's betrayal and trapdoor. Should the players pretend their characters are ignorant? Or are they allowed to act upon their knowledge as players that the witch is going to betray them too?

In my opinion, the players should play their characters however they feel their character would act in the situation. Me knowing the players know what happened to the rogue has no bearing on what the characters know, so if the characters are just doing things they could do with what knowledge they do have - such as be very suspicious, and even assume wrong-doing on the part of the witch, up to an including guessing correctly about what exactly went down - I don't see any problem. They know the rogue went off alone and hasn't returned, so even if they don't know where the rogue was going they have an explanation for their worries.

But that is where I keep finding disagreement with this old definition of metagaming - people let knowing what the player knows distract them from even considering that the character didn't need to know it to do what they have done.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

We never do character backgrounds deeply enough to identify cousins (for some characters with big families that could take all night!), but if someone wants to know the names of two of their PC's cousins either I'll dream something up on the fly or they will; whichever is most expedient at the time. This assumes these cousins are just run-of-the-mill common folk; if they're more signficant, or intended to be, then there'll be some dice rolling involved to see what makes them tick...but the names will still likely come from whoever gets to them first.

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?

Usually I would in this case, then ask what the PC is doing in-character to learn it.

I tend to invite players to contribute to the fiction, outside of their own character

As do I, to some extent, though I retain a right of veto if it conflicts with anything relevant and-or impinges on some future plot point. For example, if a character wants to say she spent 5 years in the Legions* before starting her adventuring career that's cool; but if she says that during her tour of duty her Legion sacked Spieadeia I'll veto it, as I-as-DM know Spieadeia is and has been for ages a thriving peaceful small city even if the PCs don't yet.

* - assuming the game world has a culture that would have Legions or a reasonable equivalent

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

Maybe not true ill-will most of the time, but metagaming is almost always an attempt - intentional or otherwise - to gain an advantage over the game.

I disagree. Because isn't part of the whole game trying to make good decisions, and trying to avoid death for your character? So it seems to me that beating the game, or getting an advantage over it, is part of the game's goal (along with just having fun, and an exciting adventure).

So this is where I think Iserith is correct to point out that metagaming seems encouraged by the game, because we all want to win don't we? Now of course there is a big difference between cheating (by for example reading the campaign module) and just thinking like a player.

In the a fore mentioned evil crone scenario, a perfectly good justification could be given to distrust the old crone, even if the players are also leaning on their knowledge as players regarding the fate of their rogue friend. I don't see this as ill intent. Everyone at the table knows the crone is the villain, so should they be even put into a position where they have to fake ignorance and walk right into the crone's trap?

And I think perhaps a more important question could be asked: Does it really matter if the players act upon their knowledge that the crone is a villain? So what if she doesn't drop them into her dungeon... what does it matter? Why make a big deal out of it?

In my opinion, the players should play their characters however they feel their character would act in the situation. Me knowing the players know what happened to the rogue has no bearing on what the characters know, so if the characters are just doing things they could do with what knowledge they do have - such as be very suspicious, and even assume wrong-doing on the part of the witch, up to an including guessing correctly about what exactly went down - I don't see any problem. They know the rogue went off alone and hasn't returned, so even if they don't know where the rogue was going they have an explanation for their worries.

But that is where I keep finding disagreement with this old definition of metagaming - people let knowing what the player knows distract them from even considering that the character didn't need to know it to do what they have done.

And again, I think more importantly I don't see why busting the crone on her obvious betrayal would be such a big deal to some DM's. Yes, the players could come up with plenty of reasons why their characters might suspect foul play. But even if they don't have a reason to suspect her, why even put the players in such a position where they have to completely ignore what they know as players? To me, there are many ways to avoid this issue entirely:

-Make sure the players don't know what happened to their ally, by revealing the outcome after they have had their encounter with the crone.

-Allow the players to act on their knowledge as players, using what ever in-character justification they come up with. And just don't worry about it.

-Give the PC's an obvious clue to the witch's betrayal, which eliminates the need for this strange game of pretend entirely.