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

[Corwin]

Can you prove that false statement?

Yes, I can prove that true statement. Easily. You claimed some nonsense about no one being able to pull a burning log/stick from a campfire to brandish like a torch, burning on one end. Provable as ridiculous on its face. Heck, *I've* pulled firewood from a campfire many times*. Sometimes to use the other, burning end to light something else afire.


[*unlike some people, I've actually gone camping countless times in my life.]

 

[Maxperson]

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.

One and only ONE sentence deals with what metagaming is. The others are a few limited and non-exhaustive examples and a few suggestions.

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

It already validates them. Why would I not use it. Of the two of us, you are the one misinterpreting what it says by trying to take a few limited examples as gospel about the whole thing.

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."

Two limited examples that aren't even remotely enough to represent all that the real sentence on what metagaming is includes.

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

A character can only think about what it knows or can piece together from what it knows. When you bring in player knowledge that the PC doesn't have for the PC to act on, you've gone outside of "What does the PC think" and into the realm of thinking about the game as a game.

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.

The bolded portions are not all that the DMG section on metagaming entails. It also includes every other situation where the players think of the game as a game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

One and only ONE sentence deals with what metagaming is. The others are a few limited and non-exhaustive examples and a few suggestions.

It already validates them. Why would I not use it. Of the two of us, you are the one misinterpreting what it says by trying to take a few limited examples as gospel about the whole thing.

Two limited examples that aren't even remotely enough to represent all that the real sentence on what metagaming is includes.

A character can only think about what it knows or can piece together from what it knows. When you bring in player knowledge that the PC doesn't have for the PC to act on, you've gone outside of "What does the PC think" and into the realm of thinking about the game as a game.

The bolded portions are not all that the DMG section on metagaming entails. It also includes every other situation where the players think of the game as a game.

This section of the DMG says nothing about what a character knows except that the character shouldn't act like a character who knows it's in a movie. We know already that the player says what a character thinks. Nobody else can do that for the player, nor can anyone gainsay a player for establishing anything he or she wants about that. Using knowledge about the weaknesses of trolls is not thinking of the game as a game. It's establishing what the character thinks, which may or may not be true. And if you truly cared about "metagaming," which I think is different from what the DMG calls "metagame thinking," then I would think you'd do something to make sure that sometimes the characters are wrong instead of calling people cheaters.

Would anyone else like to take a crack at this argument? Because I lack the time or inclination to play word games with Maxperson and that is likely where we're headed, based on past experiences.

 

[Corwin]

The bolded portions are not all that the DMG section on metagaming entails. It also includes every other situation where the players think of the game as a game.

Like knowing you can run a wolf through with your greatsword, but the rules let you decide you only knocked it unconscious?

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

That's fine, if you like simulationism, but there are many forms of realism:

1) Physical possibility (surviving great falls)
2) Historical accuracy (how restrictive plate armor is)
3) Internal consistency (magic in Harry Potter, as a counterexample)
4) "How likely a person is to choose a particular course of action"

I'm sorry, Max, but of all those categories #4 is so subjective and arbitrary as to be just silly.

But even if it weren't, even if you could accurately predict any person's (or fictional character's) most likely course of action...acting out only those most likely actions is just a miserable excuse for roleplaying. So miserable that I don't believe that's what you really do.

More likely you act out (or believe you act out) choices from among reasonably probable/plausible alternatives. Which is what I do, as well. The only difference is that you seem to have a rather stricter definition of "reasonable", and in particular you eliminate choices which might break your preferred aesthetic regarding metagaming.

Which is fine. My perception of your interpretation doesn't sound particularly fun or creative to me, but that's where the "if it's fun at your table, go for it" principle kicks in.

The mistake you continue to make is to believe that your threshold between reasonable and unreasonable is the correct one. That choosing a looser definition is "cheating". That the only reason it is ok is because DMs have the power to change rules.

You occasionally pay lip service to the "fun at your table" principle, but you have repeatedly expressed that any way other than yours is not just less fun, but objectively wrong. "Cheating".

OneTrueWayism, at its finest and worst...both at the same time!

 

[Guest 6801328]

[*unlike some people, I've actually gone camping countless times in my life.]

Somehow I suspect it's not so many as to be countless. And if you are actually burning sticks in open fires I hope you are 'camping' at a campground, not in the wild.

 

[Bawylie]

Here's the text for Metagame Thinking in the DMG.

One sentence on definition. 3 sentences clarifying the definition.

2 suggestions on how to address it. 1 is a gentle reminder. The other deals with building situations that are difficult to survive.

Nothing at all about player-character knowledge.
Nothing in there about cheating.
Nothing in there about a player giving advice to another player while their characters are not near one another.

-------

Right, a little digression. This one-true-way point people use is waffle. Pretty much everyone tries to do the best they can for themselves. Pretty much everyone believes they're basically doing the right thing. Making an accusation of one-true-wayism just sounds to me like "Well, that's like, your opinion, man" or "You think your idea is good." Basically meaningless points, no? Of course we think our ideas are good. Why would we keep doing things we think aren't good to do? Come on now, let's make real arguments instead of fart-sniffing ones.


-Brad

Edit: spelling

 

[Corwin]

Somehow I suspect it's not so many as to be countless. And if you are actually burning sticks in open fires I hope you are 'camping' at a campground, not in the wild.

Assumptions are the new black, it seems.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Assumptions are the new black, it seems.

You're right. I was assuming you are a mortal human, and therefore are incapable of having gone camping enough times in your life that it is literally an uncountable number (as opposed to merely an uncounted one). My apologies.