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

[Corwin]

And here it would probably depend on each character's background.

So all it takes, for an experienced player to avoid being called a dirty metagamer (and having his declared actions shut down), is to take the time to write a 300 page background that can virtually guarantee they will cover most nearly any traditional "gotcha" information that may arise at some point during play?*

A local militiaman might very well know what those silvered arrows are for, having had it drilled into him by his commander. A farmhand might very well not, having never heard of lycanthropes in his life.

I get you are saying "might very well" for both. But these are still thin, arbitrary reasonings. IMO, they just as easily "might very well" be the opposite. The militiaman could be a fresh recruit who hasn't had that particular bit of information drilled into him yet (there's just so many scary things that go bump in the night - it takes time to get a green soldier fully up to speed). Meanwhile, the farmer's late, great-grandmother could have been bitten by a werewolf while gathering firewood in the forest way back in the day. Sure, she was eventually cured by a wandering witch who took pity on her after she accidentally killed her husband during one of her "episodes". But her descendants still fear some hint of the savage wolf spirit still resides deep in their souls, just waiting to resurface.


[*Someone earlier in this thread made mention of how much s/he like using hyperbole to illustrate the ridiculousness of a position. - Thanks for the advice, dude!**]


[**I don't remember who it was and I'm far too lazy to go back and fish it up.]

 

[iserith]

In the context of being an isolated example and indicent, yes it does.

However, what do you think of it when the player whose character just happened to try the burning log is the same one who just happened to try a silvered dagger against a lycanthrope and who just happened to pull out a mace on first seeing skeletons - even though her favoured weapon has always been longsword? At what point do the bounds of credulity stop stretching and just snap?

As DM, I don't think anything of those things. My role is to narrate what happens when the PC attacks with the log, the silvered dagger, or the mace. It's possible the character is paying a price or taking a risk to do those things though because I like including trade-offs in my challenges. That keeps things interesting in my view.

As a player, I'd think that's a pretty skilled player who I'm glad to have on my team - respect! In terms of believability, those are all reasonable things an adventurer might do, so I'm just fine with that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanliss]

I, for one, completely agree with your suggestion of banning people who play dwarves with Scottish accents and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

(By ban, you mean they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes right? Along with the gnomes and the paladins?)

the Gnomish Paladins are the revolution.

 

[Lanefan]

There has to be some reason that she has her character carrying a silvered dagger, a mace and a burning log as well as her favoured longsword?

Otherwise I presume that the DM should have just nixed those items off her character sheet at the village before she headed off on adventure.

Well, the burning log will come off soon enough on its own.

Seriously, if a character is proficient in many weapons but specialized in one, doesn't it make sense that on meeting some unknown creature for the first time she'll reach for that one weapon first and only try something else once it's proven the one isn't very effective?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I, for one, completely agree with your suggestion of banning people who play dwarves with Scottish accents and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I have a Dwarf I play these days who, if he ever finds where these newsletters are printed, will burn it down with extreme prejudice - all the while bellowing in a Scottish accent so think many won't understand half of what he says!

Lan-"but he's no Paladin, so at least he's off that hook"-efan

 

[Shasarak]

I, for one, completely agree with your suggestion of banning people who play dwarves with Scottish accents and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

(By ban, you mean they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes right? Along with the gnomes and the paladins?)

I dont know if I would go as far as putting them against the wall when a good public shunning maybe as effective.

But I would not object if we had to push them in front of a zombie horde to save the rest of the party.

 

[iserith]

Seriously, if a character is proficient in many weapons but specialized in one, doesn't it make sense that on meeting some unknown creature for the first time she'll reach for that one weapon first and only try something else once it's proven the one isn't very effective?

Could you imagine a reason why it makes sense instead to try the silvered dagger first before she takes out the longsword?

Because if you can (and I know you can), then you might realize that there are many reasons someone might do anything and some of that doesn't necessarily mean the character is acting on knowledge you think it shouldn't have. And thus, knowing that, you may see why some of us no longer care to ask the reason why.

 

[Shasarak]

I have a Dwarf I play these days who, if he ever finds where these newsletters are printed, will burn it down with extreme prejudice - all the while bellowing in a Scottish accent so think many won't understand half of what he says!

If you can understand half of what he says then it is not a "true" Scottish accent!

 

[Arial Black]

If you can understand half of what he says then it is not a "true" Scottish accent!

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, repackaged? Well done!