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

[Maxperson]

He has just declared his own definition of metagaming as being the same as the 5th edition DMG's definition, which is factually untrue, by claiming that what he calls cheating (which, again, is me playing my character as doing what seemed completely reasonable to me given the character's knowledge - not thinking about the game as a game like the DMG says is metagaming) is what the DMG is talking about.

And this is exactly the reason you think I insulted you. You invent something on my behalf and then react to it. That statement does not say that my definition is the same as 5e's definition. It just says that 5e acts as if metagaming is cheating as well. Further, if you had bothered to read what I wrote instead of just making crap up and attributing it to me, you'd know that I said that 5e has broadened the definition and isn't the same as mine. The broadened definition does include mine within it, though.

Here Max refuses to do the decent thing that makes it clear he didn't mean offense of saying "Sorry you got offended, that wasn't my intention." and acknowledging that something he chose to do is part of how I ended up offended. Instead, he doubles-down on the offensive attitude by insisting that I'm going out of my way when all I did was read what words he chose to use.

I have nothing to apologize for. I didn't insult you at all. I did what was required of me and let you know that I didn't call you a cheater. At that point you had the option to do the right thing and say, "Oh, I thought you did. My bad." or to double down as you just accused me and keep acting insulted. You chose to keep acting insulted over something that you knew wasn't an insult, which makes your feeling offended entirely your fault.

And here Max is clearly saying only one thing; that I am a disruptive player acting in bad faith. Why is he saying that? Because he disagrees with me that "Oh jeez, a monster!" *grabs nearest weapon to defend self* is cool.

As was noted, there is almost no conceivable reason why a PC would use a candle over a sword in these situations. It's also a matter of context. If you were aware of what context is, you'd know that since I have said that metagaming is cheating in my game, but not in games where it is allowed, that I am talking about MY GAME, not yours, and not you.

Learn how to recognize context, it's a life saver in these situations and will save your feelings from being offended at things that are not offensive.

So hopefully that clearly illustrates for you why it appears that I am generous and serene and assuming of no ill intent, except for where Max (and any other one-true-way arguments I come across - which I will admit aren't all that many since this forum's ignore feature prevents me for seeing the posts of one-true-wayists that don't want me responding to them) is concerned.

Given your examples here, I wouldn't trust your ability to recognize One True Wayism. You're batting 0 when it comes to me.

 

[Maxperson]

Weremoose sister? She should have sold spam!

I once made a character who was a lumberjack. He was okay.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Who is is going to stick their hands into a fire and pull out a burning stick/log?

You are, again, recharacterizing the action in question as something it wasn't.

Logic says it will be unwieldy and/or weak.

This is a point on which you are being inconsistent. You say that logic says the burning log will be unwieldy and/or weak, but the rules of the game don't. Yet logic says wolves are afraid of fire, and you've explicitly stated that in D&D they are not (without "house rule" to make them so), but the rules of the game don't.

Um. The burning stick is not in hand.

In the scenario it was. You are, again, altering facts to suit yourself.

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

That is dodging the point. The point in question being that your idea of what is 'cheating' means the list of what is cheating for a new player is shorter than the list of what is cheating for an experienced player.

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

That's a one-true-way statement.

...5e has broadened the definition and isn't the same as mine. The broadened definition does include mine within it, though.

5th edition narrowed the definition, as it no longer includes the thing you have repeatedly insisted I was metagaming by doing - because I was not thinking of the game as a game when I decided to react to a monster attack in a way that I believe a real person put in the same situation might.

You chose to keep acting insulted over something that you knew wasn't an insult, which makes your feeling offended entirely your fault.

I chose to "keep acting insulted" because you kept appearing to be insulting. *shrug*

...use a candle...

More deliberate mischaracterization of the discussion.

If you were aware of what context is...

You mean like how, in context, this is an insult?

Given your examples here, I wouldn't trust your ability to recognize One True Wayism. You're batting 0 when it comes to me.

And with this, it is clear you are not interesting in a discussion at all, but in "winning", and since I'm not interested in that, I am bowing out of this discussion with you. This will be my last post responding to you in this thread.

 

[Lanefan]

Now, I say this because my group has been playing together for decades. No one is actually bossing anyone around...

Same here re the decades part, which is why I know exactly who will most likely be doing the bossing-around and exactly who will most likely be resentful of it. So, I just make sure the situation doesn't arise...cuts down on the stress level.

Lanefan

 

[Maxperson]

You are, again, recharacterizing the action in question as something it wasn't.

This is a point on which you are being inconsistent. You say that logic says the burning log will be unwieldy and/or weak, but the rules of the game don't. Yet logic says wolves are afraid of fire, and you've explicitly stated that in D&D they are not (without "house rule" to make them so), but the rules of the game don't.

In the scenario it was. You are, again, altering facts to suit yourself.

Why would the PC be holding a burning stick? When you tend a fire, the stick you tend with is not burning. Sticks in the fire will be burning. Are you suggesting that the PC stood there for the length of time it would take for a fire tending stick to catch fire?

That is dodging the point. The point in question being that your idea of what is 'cheating' means the list of what is cheating for a new player is shorter than the list of what is cheating for an experienced player.

That really doesn't matter at all. Cheating is cheating is cheating. Cheating is not an option.

That's a one-true-way statement.

No it isn't. We are discussing a character that has a weapon. That means that the weapon is in fact at hand. All he has to do is draw it.

5th edition narrowed the definition, as it no longer includes the thing you have repeatedly insisted I was metagaming by doing - because I was not thinking of the game as a game when I decided to react to a monster attack in a way that I believe a real person put in the same situation might.

It EXPANDED the definition to include any and all thinking of the game as a game. Metagaming as I define it involves thinking of the game as a game. What you suggested fits my definition of metagaming as the character was acting upon YOUR knowledge, not his.

And with this, it is clear you are not interesting in a discussion at all, but in "winning", and since I'm not interested in that, I am bowing out of this discussion with you. This will be my last post responding to you in this thread.

False accusations of One True Wayism aren't a discussion. If you want a discussion, you have to be willing to discuss things. Instead, you've been accusing me of all kinds of things that I haven't been doing. It's a two way street.

 

[Lanefan]

Why would the PC be holding a burning stick? When you tend a fire, the stick you tend with is not burning. Sticks in the fire will be burning. Are you suggesting that the PC stood there for the length of time it would take for a fire tending stick to catch fire?

I've had this (in real life) happen once or twice - the fire is hot enough that the stick I'm using to tend it is itself on fire by the time I'm done. And it's quite possible to pull out of a fire a log that's burning on one end - you just grab hold of the other, non-burning, end.

==============================================================================

Even beyond that, however, I'm slowly coming to realize the troll-fire argument is unwinnable...for either side...or any side, for that matter. Too much gray area, too much opportunity for legitimate non-metagame coincidence, and at the same time a clear opportunity for metagaming as well. Hammer away all we (collectively) like, none of that will change.

The out-of-character advice argument, however, is a lot more black and white. I'm slowly realizing I'm not going to win it here...I'm badly outnumbered and in fact am truly surprised at how little support there is for my position, given that every single table I've ever sat at (even including conventions etc.) has gone the character = player route when it comes to communication and suggestions. In fact, this is the first place I've ever heard anyone suggest that out-of-character advice and player-to-player talk without regard for the relative positions of the characters is even allowed, never mind considered to be standard procedure.

And so, I bow out...not as a concession that I'm wrong - this is a fight I'll keep fighting elsewhere if I have to as I firmly believe the way I've been supporting is the way the game is and always has been intended to be played - but in realization that the brick wall has this time won out over my head.

Lan-"and I've made sure I'm in the same room as all your characters, so you can all hear me"-efan

 

[Imaculata]

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.

If you phrase it in such a way. But that's not how this works is it? A player simply declares an action: "I want to pull a burning log out of the campfire, and swing it at the wolves to scare them away." -And the player makes no assumptions regarding the state of the log in question.

It is up to the DM to respond to that action declaration, and be as lenient or anal about it, as he thinks appropriate.

Me personally, I would probably be lenient, and assume that the PC can find a log that is only burning on one end. Because it is an action that is not far fetched. If you're an adventurer sitting next to a campfire, then trying to grab a burning log from the fire is a completely reasonable action.

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.

No true Scotsman would wear pants. I've never seen it done. I doubt I ever will see it done.

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.

The log can be anything you want it to be, if you're the DM. And if the goal is to scare the wolves away with fire, then it doesn't need to be wieldy or strong. It just needs to be on fire, and within easy reach, which it probably is, if you are sitting next to a campfire.

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.

Maybe I left my sword in my tent.

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

If my character is tending to a campfire, he probably put his sword away, and has taken off his armor. The sword is probably in his tent, because it is uncomfortable to sit next to a campfire with a scabbard poking into your side. And all that armor starts to weigh down a lot on your shoulders and neck after a few days on the road. When my character is sitting next to a campfire, that is probably one of the moments when he takes all that gear off.

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.

Well then me grabbing a burning log is entirely justified. Especially if I don't want to hurt the wolves. Maybe my character is a druid, and he does not want to fight the wolves.

 

[Mecheon]

As was noted, there is almost no conceivable reason why a PC would use a candle over a sword in these situations. It's also a matter of context. If you were aware of what context is, you'd know that since I have said that metagaming is cheating in my game, but not in games where it is allowed, that I am talking about MY GAME, not yours, and not you.

I mean, there are plenty of conceivable reasons. I mean hell, an episode of a 5E playthrough I watch had someone grab a bandit and jam their face into a brazier until they died. They were a warlock so its not like they couldn't have cast something to deal with them, and it was just a generic bandit. They just decided the way to deal with this particular bandit was 'Fire in the face'. Also possibly to drown out the screaming.

Sometimes your character just loses it for a bit and puts the nearest object through something's eye

 

[Maxperson]

If you phrase it in such a way. But that's not how this works is it? A player simply declares an action: "I want to pull a burning log out of the campfire, and swing it at the wolves to scare them away." -And the player makes no assumptions regarding the state of the log in question.

It is up to the DM to respond to that action declaration, and be as lenient or anal about it, as he thinks appropriate.

One of the main reason for tending a fire is to push those ends into the fire to control the burn area.

No true Scotsman would wear pants. I've never seen it done. I doubt I ever will see it done.

I didn't say it was impossible that someone would stick their hand into a fire to grab something too hot to handle. I said it wasn't something that I'm likely to see.

The log can be anything you want it to be, if you're the DM. And if the goal is to scare the wolves away with fire, then it doesn't need to be wieldy or strong. It just needs to be on fire, and within easy reach, which it probably is, if you are sitting next to a campfire.

Unwieldy and weak is the argument about using the thing as a weapon against trolls, not wolves.

Maybe I left my sword in my tent.

If my character is tending to a campfire, he probably put his sword away, and has taken off his armor. The sword is probably in his tent, because it is uncomfortable to sit next to a campfire with a scabbard poking into your side. And all that armor starts to weigh down a lot on your shoulders and neck after a few days on the road. When my character is sitting next to a campfire, that is probably one of the moments when he takes all that gear off.

Well, if that's the case your PC should probably retire if he survives the troll fight. Campfires are the biggest reason why adventurers get attacked at night. Being at a campfire in the middle of the night is one of the moments that you are least likely to take your gear off. Sleeping may require you to remove your armor, but leaving your weapon inside a tent is close to engaging in suicidal behavior.

 

[Corwin]

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.

Brings to mind Hudson Hawk. Hudson and Tommy time their capers using popular songs. This way they can be completely separated, but still remain in perfect rhythm.