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

[Corwin]

Yet they do. Think about it: during the fight each is able to play his-her character as desired, interacting with the others without outside interference.

...as long as they don't metagame by taking advantage of anything they may happen to know OOC about each other's PCs, amIright?

 

[Corwin]

None of which have I ever watched.

But - different environment again. They're specifically trying to make an entertaining show that people will tune in to (passively) watch. Would their playstyle be the same once the cameras are turned off...or if they had never been turned on?

YMMV, but my expectations for being entertained at my own D&D table should remain at least as high, if not higher, than that which I expect from watching one of these streaming shows.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yep. But there's a huge difference that I think you're ignoring:

In-character antagonism is part of the game. Out of character antagonism is not.

Actually, our disagreement on this point comes down to me not ignoring that difference - just assuming that out-of-character antagonism, being not part of the game, isn't being allowed to happen.

Someone at my table being antagonistic to another player, or worse all of the players, at the table out-of-character? That's someone that gets shown the door. There is no room in my game time for stuff that's not part of the game.

And to the part of your post I've snipped, all of that is incompatible players causing problems, not the communication method, though the communication method does as I said earlier magnify what problems are already present in the group.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I guess perhaps it's that in our crew people see it as their game-given right to play their characters how they want based on the reality in the game world...

You are doing that thing again. You know, where you make an unrelated statement as if it were relevant to your side of the discussion and it ends up implying something untrue about the other side. Specificially the bold part.

None of us talking about a more open table communication that allows for players to make suggestions to other players stopping a player from playing their character how they want. Entirely the opposite, actually, since we've said repeatedly the final decision comes down to what the player of the character wants - and I even included an example of the rest of the group stepping up to stop a player if that player goes too far making suggestions.

So at best your claim above is irrelevant, and at worst you actually intended it as the dig at the rest of us that it looks like.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Two arguments (among others) have been appearing in this thread:

1) "If you let players metagame they will end up being jerks to each other in-character, as the OP describes."

and more recently...

2) "It you let players metagame they will end up being jerks to each other out-of-character, e.g. the loud ones will telling the quiet ones how to play their characters."

As weak as I think the "metagaming is not role-playing" argument is, these two arguments are even weaker. Far from being persuasive, the only thing I really take away from it is that the people who offer those arguments must play with some real jerks.

Slippery slope argument?

Yeah, sure, some players will be jerks, but it's easy enough to deal with when it happens that trying to inoculate the table against jerky behavior by dictating how everybody must roleplay seems...hysterical overkill?

Stick with the "metagaming is not roleplaying" argument. It's misguided, but at least it raises some interesting questions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If your character can't communicate with mine in-game then you-as-player can't tell me anything in-character out-of-game.
Interesting. That said, I know my players (and myself as a player) well enough to say that wouldn't happen here. In fact, were we to try this I'd say the life expectancy of our games would be measured in real-time hours...it would flat-out blow up. And not in a fun way.

Comes down to player knowledge v character knowledge again.

I used to try to prevent players talking to each other to "coach" each other, especially when separated. And I'll be honest and say that I will still do it at times...but only in very specific, high-drama moments.

The rest of the time, I just let it happen. The way I see it is that there is no way to accurately portray all the ways a group of adventurers would work together. They'd likely come to know each other really well over a short period of time...they would know what the others would do in a given situation, or what the others would want them to do. So the players serve as these thoughts. I've actually grown very comfortable with it.

Now, I say this because my group has been playing together for decades. No one is actually bossing anyone around, so there are never any issues in that regard. I could see how that could be a concern for some groups, and in such a case as the DM I would actively try to limit that. But in general, I think it's a practice that works both in the playing of the game and within the fiction of the game.

 

[Shasarak]

I guess perhaps it's that in our crew people see it as their game-given right to play their characters how they want based on the reality in the game world...

You are doing that thing again. You know, where you make an unrelated statement as if it were relevant to your side of the discussion and it ends up implying something untrue about the other side. Specificially the bold part.

Seeing it in bold like that made me realise that is exactly what I want as well. I just want to hit that damn Troll with a burning log without someone else trying to manage my character for me. See a Were-Creature? Hit it with my silvered Dagger. See a Skeleton? Hit it with my Mace. See a Zombie Horde? Push a non-Scottish speaking Dwarf in front of it.

 

[Maxperson]

The DMG definitely does not support the sort of take on "metagaming" you have.

Yes, it absolutely does support the sort of take on metagaming that I have. The DMG is against any and all thinking of the game as a game. Having a PC use knowledge that it doesn't have, but the player does is a form of thinking of the game as a game.

Anyone reading it can see that. It very specifically calls out "metagame thinking" as a thing to avoid so that players don't end up with a bad play experience as a result (getting their characters killed or wasting session time).

This is blatantly false. "Metagame thinking means thinking of the game as a game.", period. That's what it means. That is what DMs are directed to discourage and curb. Nothing in that section limits it to bad play experiences.

 

[Maxperson]

That is one of the cheesiest, metagaming-based reasonings I've seen in a while. Well done!

You should try to think things through before responding. Creatures can be stabbed in the shoulder, legs, etc., so wounding and not killing is entirely an in game response by the character. Choosing to swing and strike with the flat of the blade is entirely an in game response by the character. Seeing a blow that is going to strike a creature through the chest and diverting it at the last second in order not to kill it is entirely an in game response by the character.

Think things through before making accusations that so obviously fail.

 

[Maxperson]

No. You're missing my point. A player who's totally unaware of the fire vulnerability may actually decide to use fire without any in-game cues. It could just happen because hitting something with fire is a perfectly valid form of attack pretty much always.

So the player who knows the trick is incapable of having his character, without any in game cues, decide to attack with fire.

Hence, his knowledge is a detriment. It limits what he is allowed to do.

This is all a moot point, anyway. Who is is going to stick their hands into a fire and pull out a burning stick/log? If you've ever been to a campfire/bonfire, you know that fire burns the entire length of the wood. I seriously doubt anyone is going to take the time to locate a fresh stick/log, go get it, stick it into the fire long enough to catch fire solidly, then turn to the troll that just barreled into camp.

You said it was untrue that you punish players for their knowledge but do not reward them. See my example immediately above. Now, please give me an example where you reward players based on their knowledge.

If they use their knowledge in conjunction with in game events/knowledge/clues to overcome a situation, they get the reward for overcoming it. Just the same as a new player.

To me, it seems that being an experienced player in your game always results in a reduction in the options available. Explain to me how that's not the case. Give me an opposing example.

New players aren't going to randomly decide to stick their hands into a fire to grab a burning stick. I've never seen it done. I doubt I ever will see it done.

Well, you've added in some adjectives to swing things in your favor. Who says it must be "unwieldy" or "weak"? I think the fact that it was immediately at hand may be a far more important factor for the character, no? Wouldn't immediacy be the most important factor in such a scenario? Especially since the character would have no knowledge of initiative, turns, hit points, and so forth.

Logic says it will be unwieldy and/or weak. It's a freaking BURNT STICK. It's weak. It's also not designed to be used as a weapon. It's not going to have a nice smooth tapered end for the player to grab onto well, with the weight balanced like a club is. It's going to be unwieldy. It's also pretty much guaranteed to be on fire from end to end, so the PC is going to take damage from sticking his hand into a fire and grabbing a burning stick, and then drop the thing.

Instead, you're having the character think that rather than a weapon at hand, it would make more sense to drop that weapon, and draw another to make an attack....and this is because the character assumes the monster won't eat his face while he does that?

Um. The burning stick is not in hand. It would take more time and effort to stick his hand into a fire and grab a burning stick than to just yank the sword out of the sheath.

Your view of metagaming does not allow for the full range of behaviors available to characters. It actively limits the choices because some choices are deemed cheating.

Cheating is not included in the choices available to characters of new players or experienced players. That is correct.

That's not the situation, though. The action in question is perfectly within the character's options and ability. It is an option. Let's say the monster was an ogre and not a troll....then it is an option.

I would explain to the new player how grabbing a burning stick out of the fire would cause the PC damage and result in a stick that is weaker than the sword and would do less damage. That would be explained whether it was a troll or an ogre.

I don't think it is, really. My view is that metagaming is occurring no matter what in that instance.

Right, which automatically makes your definition different from mine.

Let's look at it through the lens of a movie or a book rather than a game. Characters don't always take the "best" available action in fiction. Sometimes, they make "suboptimal" choices. So a character preparing a campfire who is surprised by the sudden appearance of a slobbering fanged monstrosity next to him is very likely to grab what's at hand and use it to try and fend the creature off.

A character tending to the campfire will have his weapon at hand.

This is why I would consider allowing the player a small level of authorship to decide either "my character grabs what's closest and tries to swat the thing away" OR "my character thinks that thing's a troll, and he's heard that trolls can be hurt by little but fire" far more acceptable.

Then you are free to play that way.

And why are "D&D wolves" not afraid of fire? Because there's no mechanical expression of that in their stat block?

Or in the lore. There is no mention of it, so they are not by RAW any more fearful of fire than any other creature.

Yeah, I've seen this kind of thing a lot. I've been playing that way so long that it really seems odd to me not to play that way, with the NPCs and creatures actually having goals and a sense of self-preservation, and the DM having them behave accordingly. Most creatures that are looking for a meal aren't willing to die for the meal.

I play animals the way they would in nature as well. Wolves don't attack humans. Most animals don't. Would fire waved at a wolf in my game work? Yes, I'd probably house rule that in.

I mean, if my turkey sandwich clubbed me in the head with a stick, I'd run the hell away and look for something else to eat.

So the characters are allowed to know that they can simply choose to knock an enemy out rather than kill? Do they know that only applies to melee attacks and not ranged attacks?

Of course the character knows that. You can't cause an arrow in flight to turn aside from hitting the neck or heart the way you could a sword strike. That's why the rule is different for ranged weapons.

And in the case of the troll, I suppose that they wouldn't know that such a decision would result in the troll simply regaining consciousness on its turn, right? Because how would they know that since it requires player knowledge?

In my experience, a troll regaining consciousness is a non-issue. The PCs just hit it again and knock it back out, and then know about regeneration. At that point they just keep it down while they figure things out.