D&D 5E (2014) How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[Ricochet]

Dominant players that hog the spotlight, are something that all DM's must be wary of, regardless of whether you allow your players to share information or not. I think this is an entirely separate issue.

You are probably right.

 

[Harzel]

That sounds, to me, like a weak justification to explain how you can bring the idea that some people are cheaters into the discussion and pretend you didn't mean it to be a judgement against people that don't follow the rules you prefer.

For someone who has an (admirably) detached, generous, and serene attitude about players' motivations in declaring actions, your attitude toward Max's motivations in expressing his opinions in this forum seems to gravitate to the other extreme.

Because if you weren't meaning to call all of us that you've called metagamers cheaters, there was no purpose for you to ever say that metagaming is cheating.

I'm thinking that his purpose was to relate that in his game, metagaming (using his definition) is cheating. Seems kind of ... straightforward? I may or may not prefer that dictum for my game, but I don't see the problem with Max having that opinion. Why do you insist on taking it personally??

I suppose that Max could have just said that in his game metagaming (using his definition) is not allowed and left it at that. Perhaps dragging the word "cheating" into the discussion could seem a bit provocative. But to me "doing that which is not allowed" and "cheating" seem close enough that I don't understand why it should be a problem (unless you were looking for one).

 

[Imaculata]

For someone who has an (admirably) detached, generous, and serene attitude about players' motivations in declaring actions, your attitude toward Max's motivations in expressing his opinions in this forum seems to gravitate to the other extreme.

Have you been following the whole discussion?

 

[Harzel]

... your claim that it's team work is just a highly unconvincing attempt to justify what is in fact inconsiderate table manners and bad-faith play.

... the peanut gallery who can't keep their mouths shut.

... someone was what I would consider a jerk.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] I largely share your play style preferences, but I don't think these snippets add much (that is desirable) to the discussion. Imaculata's play style is also fun for many groups.

 

[Harzel]

Have you been following the whole discussion?

Yes. I admit, sheepishly, to having read each and every post in the thread. I am not sure exactly what point you intended to make with this question, though. I could guess and then reply to the point that I guessed at, but I think we've all seen plenty of examples where that sort of thing goes astray.

I'm sure you have a perfectly good point in mind. If you care to state it explicitly, I'll be happy to discuss.

All that said, you should not assume from my comments that I think that Aaron has not made any defensible points, nor that I think that all of Max's statements are entirely defensible. They both seem to do a good deal of talking past each other. Whether that is deliberate or simply passion getting in the way of insight, I cannot say.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No I don't have to metagame. I don't have to bring a single bit of knowledge into the game world and act on it. I have to act only on what knowledge the character has, which is not metagaming. Metagaming is having a character act upon knowledge that it does not have.

There's your definition, and along with it your disagreement with my (and some of the rest of our) definition.

Acting on the knowledge that the character does or does not have is not metagaming. That is correct.

How do you know what knowledge the character has? You can't ask them. You weren't there when they grew up. You have to make it up, or decide based on your interpretation of the world they live in. Or the table or DM makes that decision, based on their preference. That's all metagaming. Just like character creation is metagaming, in the same way that building a MtG deck is metagaming. Determining what knowledge they have or don't have is metagaming.

They are all actions (thinking about and making a decision about) taken outside of the game world itself, that have an impact on the game world. The character literally cannot exist without the metagame.

The reality is, I get it. When you say you don't metagame, you're talking specifically about the evil metagame action of transferring player knowledge to character knowledge. The fact is, you can't play a character without player knowledge. They simply don't exist without the player. Your objection isn't to the use of player knowledge, it's about the use of player knowledge that you don't think the character should have.

OK, that's fine, but it still comes back to the same question? How do you decide what knowledge the character doesn't have?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

But if it becomes a pattern, there's very likely more to it: they're reading the MM (a neutral act in and of itself) and acting on what they've read (thus playing in bad faith).

Wouldn't it only be playing in bad faith if the table rules dictated it as such? I mean, it's a pattern in my games, as I've pointed out, I encourage my players to read the books and manuals, to determine what their characters may or may not know. If they decide their character has knowledge about a specific type of monster after doing so, they are following my instructions, no? How is that bad faith?

Most of my players aren't reading the MM or VGtM, since they really don't have any interest. But a couple of them are DMs so they know more about them, and we also have discussions about ideas for games where we aren't players. So I know that they know a lot more, and sometimes that info enters the game, sometimes it doesn't. But again, my assumption is that if you live in a world where monsters are real, you'll pay attention to the lore you hear, even if it's about a monster you've never seen.

The problem only exists if there is a rule that prohibits it. As I've pointed out, the character is really only capable of acting out of player knowledge. It is, after all, a fictional construct. Other than rules to allow the character to have independent knowledge (skill checks, or the DM filling in blanks the player may not know), they can only act upon what the player knows.

The issue has nothing to do with whether the character is acting upon player knowledge. It is entirely a question of what player knowledge a given table excludes.

For example, some have indicated that they allow other players to make suggestions, even when their character isn't present. I myself often allow this, because the game is entirely in our heads, and the sort of decisions and observations a character living in the world with full access to all of their senses is quite different than what goes on in our imagination. So sometimes some extra help is welcome. I actually prefer that to prodding or suggestions from me (the DM) because anything I say takes on a greater importance. "Oh, if the DM points that out, it must be a big deal."

In addition, based on my experience playing, running, and watching D&D and other RPG games, there's a lot more metagaming than people usually give themselves credit. You can't have the game without it. But it's only certain circumstances where it triggers their metagame alert.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

That sounds, to me, like a weak justification to explain how you can bring the idea that some people are cheaters into the discussion and pretend you didn't mean it to be a judgement against people that don't follow the rules you prefer.

Because if you weren't meaning to call all of us that you've called metagamers cheaters, there was no purpose for you to ever say that metagaming is cheating.

Cheating is the default state unless changed. That's why the 5e DMG directs DMs to discourage and curb that sort of behavior. However if it is allowed in your game, it has changed and it's no longer cheating. It's no different than if your DM allows you to alter die rolls after they happen. That's cheating, too, unless it's allowed. Then it's not cheating. I would never consider someone who altered die rolls after they happened a cheater if they were doing it in a game where it was allowed.

If you want to continue to go out of your way to be offended by this, fine. Leave me out of it, though.

I never said you need to police players who don't metagame - I said you are thought policing players when you are deciding that they are in fact metagaming, because you couldn't have any evidence to support your claim otherwise.

I don't, though, at least not in my game. They don't try so it never even comes up for me to make that sort of decision.

You moved the goal post. You are now saying that someone who always uses fire can use fire against trolls, and that is obviously true. What you were asked to think about was a character who does not regularly have accessible fire using fire 100% of the times that it was accessible to them, and how you labeled it as being inconsistent.

I might as well consider someone who uses a meteorite whenever one is found. You describe something that doesn't happen. A player that would have a PC avoid using his weapon in order to use a torch or candle just because fire is present is a disruptive player acting in bad faith.

You literally can not know that.

100%, no. However, the odds of you just happening upon that combination without player knowledge would be about as likely as winning the lottery.

No, that is absolutely one-true-way thinking. You've gone past any claim of what your own opinion is and are talking about literally all D&D characters that are threatened by wolves and trained in sword use, no matter who they are played by or what other details there are to the circumstances, and what they "wouldn't do."

I was including NPCs in the characters. So you really think that D&D characters who know that fire won't be effective would use fire in that manner over a sword? You think that D&D characters who have never heard that animals are afraid of firebrands would try it, rather then the tried and true sword? I suppose someone who was insane would opt to go with the far weaker and less effective option, but I doubt it would happen often.

False. There is no statement present in the game material for wolves that contradicts the real-world fact that they are afraid of fire to a similar degree as anything that can be harmed by it, so there is no reason for that fact to not be just as true in-character as it is out.

The absence of something does not equal it's presence. There is no statement present in the game material for wolves that contradicts their use of nuclear weapons, either. If the DM wants to house rule his animals to be exactly like real world animals, he can. That's not the default state of the animals, though.

And to really lay this completely ludicrous claim to bed; I'm a DM, and wolves at my table are now, and have always been, afraid of fire. So it's a completely normal thing for a character that knows about wolves to know that. It's also an entirely normal thing for a flammable creature, who is thus naturally afraid of fire, to assume any other creature to be flammable and afraid of fire until evidence to the contrary is encountered.

And that's a reasonable house rule.

You keep saying "much more effective sword", and I keep having a bit of a laugh to myself because this whole time you've been declaring me taking an action that, if not for the DM picking a specific monster type, you would consider to be a self-inflicted reduction of effectiveness, and also insisting that what I did is unacceptable behavior designed to gain an unfair advantage - it's a pretty wacky double-standard, unless you'd also be having the same reaction (telling me to stop "metagaming" and use my sword) had the monster chosen for the example been an ogre rather than a troll.

It would be just as nonsensical for the PC to pick up the firebrand to use against the ogre. It couldn't be metagaming, though, since no player knowledge was being used as the reason behind the nonsensical behavior.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you got that in reverse. Why would you want to isolate your players? Its a cooperative game is it not?

The reason that it's a cooperative game is that the PCs are together in a group. If a PC goes off on his own, that PC is no longer part of a cooperative game and is in a solo game until the PC returns. Also, you're getting it wrong there. The DM is not isolating the player, but rather the player is isolating himself by going off alone.

I think you got this all wrong. The entire group gets to participate in the thinking process, but its the active player that decides what action they are going to take. They are free to listen to, or ignore the advice of their fellow players.

The entire group gets to participate in the thinking process when together, yes. They are interfering in the thinking process when their PC isn't present at the puzzle or situation.

It is the exact opposite of inconsiderate table manners. The players and I have an understanding that whenever their characters are not present, they can still be involved with the events in the story as an audience. They can comment, they can offer advice. This draws everyone into the experience, regardless of whether their character is present or not.

That's fine. You've altered your game to allow this. It's not the default way the game works, though.

I think you underestimate how positive this can work, due to never having tried it this way.

I don't think you should assume things like that. I dislike it as well, but I've played in games where it was allowed and it was a detriment to my enjoyment. It didn't kill the fun entirely like metagaming, but it wasn't nearly as fun as if only players with PCs present could be part of the thinking process. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] could be the same way.

And that is boring. This is exactly the thing that makes players turn to their phone.

That's the fault of the DM. In an interesting game, the other players watch and listen to what the solo PC is doing and encountering.

This is bizarre to me. Why would one player offering advice to another player, be a jerk?

Because that player is forcibly depriving me of the ability to figure things out for myself. If were me I'd tell him to butt out, and I'd be blunt about it. It's not cool to spoil things for other players.