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

[Corwin]

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.

To paraphrase a certain someone from earlier in the thread, that just sounds like a thin excuse, after the fact, to justify the "cheating".

 

[Maxperson]

To paraphrase a certain someone from earlier in the thread, that just sounds like a thin excuse, after the fact, to justify the "cheating".

If you have something useful to say, say it. You can start with how those very much in character actions that rely nothing on player knowledge are metagaming under my definition.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

So now we require knowledge (or opinion) of the proper way to tend a fire in order to determine if it's permissible to use fire on trolls? Where does that end?

This whole discussion about the realism of character choices is a red herring. If the litmus test for whether an action is permitted is whether it's the most likely course of action, then we may as well all stop playing the game.

God save me from a game where every action my character takes has to be the most likely one, as determined by (apparently) everybody but me, and my only job is to describe it in first person with a cheesy accent.

 

[Corwin]

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.

If you have to constantly remain on high alert and enact table rules to police behavior, lest your group devolve and become stressful, something is terribly wrong. The more you post, the more I am convinced you have a dysfunctional group. My condolences.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you have to constantly remain on high alert and enact table rules to police behavior, lest your group devolve and become stressful, something is terribly wrong. The more you post, the more I am convinced you have a dysfunctional group. My condolences.

I wouldn't go that far, but I do notice that the most vehement anti-metagamers frequently fall back on a parade-of-horribles argument. "If you allow any metagaming at all, these are all the terrible things that will happen..." It makes me wonder who they've been playing with.

 

[Corwin]

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?

For whatever reason, this strikes me of the kind of poster we see, who goes off matter-of-factly on topics of martial arts, though he's never even taken an introductory class of any kind.

 

[Maxperson]

[/COLOR]So now we require knowledge (or opinion) of the proper way to tend a fire in order to determine if it's permissible to use fire on trolls? Where does that end?

This whole discussion about the realism of character choices is a red herring. If the litmus test for whether an action is permitted is whether it's the most likely course of action, then we may as well all stop playing the game.

If you don't know by now that I approach the game with an eye for realism, you probably should avoid responding to me. It's just going to cause you grief when you are wrong a lot in discussions with me. Realism is critical in determining what is most likely or not. However, realism isn't what determines what is permitted or not. At least not in my game.

 

[Maxperson]

who goes off matter-of-factly on topics of martial arts, though he's never even taken an introductory class of any kind.

Can you prove that false statement?

 

[cmad1977]

In typical fashion the usual suspects in this thread shame themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

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.

There are five whole sentences in that section. It's not hard to see what it does and does not say. It does not support your take on this subject. I leave it to others at this point to read that section for themselves and see how you are wrong.

Handle "metagaming" however you want at your table, but don't go looking to the DMG to validate your methods.

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.

And in terms of thinking of the game as a game, it gives two examples at the heart of which are players doing things that lead to bad outcomes for them. Those are the instances of "metagame thinking" we are encouraged to avoid. It certainly does not consider "metagame thinking" to be "cheating."

Further, it says to discourage players from "metagame thinking" by asking "What do your characters think?"

Excellent question! Because on page 66 of the Basic Rules, it says, "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks."

So, the player is the first and final arbiter when it comes to what a character thinks. The concern the DMG expresses over "metagame thinking" is to make sure what the character thinks isn't based on bad out-of-game assumptions that lead to poor play experiences such as underestimating a threat based on how the DM designs encounters or wasting session time on things that aren't important because you think the DM gave too much description on a particular thing. It has nothing to do with how to establish what a character knows. At all. A player is free to establish that his or her character thinks anything he or she wants. (Of course, what the character thinks may or may not be true!)

I make this post not for you - there's no convincing you of anything it seems. But I hope that anyone reading this and the section in the DMG (and the Basic Rules) can see that the game does not fully support your interpretation of this matter. That doesn't mean you're playing wrong. It just means the holy texts are not something you can use to justify your beliefs.