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

[Guest 6801328]

K cool. So [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned upthread that you might be standing around or whatever and then skeletons attack. And your favored weapon is a long sword. So he'd question why you'd abandon your favored weapon for like a club or a log from a campfire or whatever.

I'm paraphrasing.

But this gets to that question of optimizing. Presuming your character is well trained in longsword, they know the purpose of the weapon is to chop meat and draw blood. Sever muscles. Whatever. The character confronted with skeletons sees that there is no meat to cleave nor blood to draw. And understanding this, doesn't try his blade against the skeletons. He figures instead on using similar fighting techniques but with an implement that can break bones and won't knick an edge or whatever. Flaming log it is.

Now we can argue that's a contrivance, but it seems to me that a character trained in longsword would know when it is not optimal to use that weapon. Much like your plumber knows his wrenches probably won't help him too much at dentistry.

So what's optimal? What's in-character? These are situational. And it's too easy to cry "metagaming" and let slip the dogs of banhammer. Why might it be better to pick up a flimsy flaming log? Because you're pretty sure rock crushes scissors.


-Brad

Totally agree with all of this.

Which is why I think it's bizarre to say "in this situation, here is what your character would do..."

(Especially, I'll note, if we're talking about an inexperienced character. Isn't a newbie exactly the sort of adventurer most likely to do something dumb like leave his sword in the tent when he's on watch?)

 

[Bawylie]

Totally agree with all of this.

Which is why I think it's bizarre to say "in this situation, here is what your character would do..."

(Especially, I'll note, if we're talking about an inexperienced character. Isn't a newbie exactly the sort of adventurer most likely to do something dumb like leave his sword in the tent when he's on watch?)

My very 1st game, 8 yrs old (& in the grips of hulkamania) I played a thief. Solo adventure in some town. Orcs were molesting villagers. Etc.

So I go into a house and an orc is menacing some poor woman and her kids. I tell the DM I want to tie a rope to a chair and swing it round at the orc. DM totally negates it. Says the orc would smash the chair with his forearm and tells me instead I'd attack with my short sword.

I was 8, DM was 16. So whatever I went along. It was just fun to play.

But man was that ever a bad call. Instead of 8 year old Brad swinging chairs and smashing orcs, I got vetoed. So yeah, maybe it would've been dumb. Maybe the orc would've smashed the chair. But then I'd have learned something. Idk man...


-Brad

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

IMO, one-true-wayism implies a playstyle, a general outlook.

How is a statement phrasing your own opinion as a fact, not just one opinion of many possible opinions, not indicative of a "playstyle" or "general outlook"?

Because it's not "I think the weapon should be kept at hand while tending a fire" vs. "I think it shouldn't" - it's "you are wrong that the weapon would ever not be at hand while tending a fire" vs. "it is entirely reasonable that sometimes the weapon is not at hand."

What is the "one true way" here?

The one in which the person expressing their opinion is also saying the other person's opinion is wrong rather than different.

Such as when someone says to me, a player that decided to go with what I'd seen in movies, and what I'd done in real-life of setting my gear down at camp rather than keeping it all on me when tending to the fire has someone else say "A character tending to the campfire will have his weapon at hand."

Does this tell you that this an optimizing/not-optimizing campaign? For or against powergamers? For or against RAW?

Those are not the only ways in which someone might choose one and treat it as the one-true. All it takes for someone to be making an argument for one true way is to insist that their chosen option (whether it's how much to optimize, how closely to adhere to the RAW, or just how to interpret rules that are open to interpretation) is the one that is correct, and everyone else is choosing wrong on purpose or just hasn't figured out what is correct yet.

There is a difference between saying "This is how I do it" (opinion, equal to everyone else's opinion) and "This is how it is done" (one true way, better than other's opinions).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

K cool. So [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned upthread that you might be standing around or whatever and then skeletons attack. And your favored weapon is a long sword. So he'd question why you'd abandon your favored weapon for like a club or a log from a campfire or whatever.

I'm paraphrasing.

But this gets to that question of optimizing. Presuming your character is well trained in longsword, they know the purpose of the weapon is to chop meat and draw blood. Sever muscles. Whatever. The character confronted with skeletons sees that there is no meat to cleave nor blood to draw. And understanding this, doesn't try his blade against the skeletons. He figures instead on using similar fighting techniques but with an implement that can break bones and won't knick an edge or whatever. Flaming log it is.

Now we can argue that's a contrivance, but it seems to me that a character trained in longsword would know when it is not optimal to use that weapon. Much like your plumber knows his wrenches probably won't help him too much at dentistry.

So what's optimal? What's in-character? These are situational. And it's too easy to cry "metagaming" and let slip the dogs of banhammer. Why might it be better to pick up a flimsy flaming log? Because you're pretty sure rock crushes scissors.


-Brad

I agree with what you say here... but I'm not seeing how the topic of your post relates to the post of mine you have quoted.

 

[iserith]

This is why I have been saying there's no "would," "will," or "should" when it comes to what a fictional character does.

It's "could," "might," or "may." It's not a character would use a longsword against the skeleton for reasons. It's a character could use a longsword against the skeleton for reasons or it could use a club or some other reason. And none of those reasons must be because the player controlling it is a filthy cheater! And who gets to determine what it ultimately is?

The player!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bawylie]

I agree with what you say here... but I'm not seeing how the topic of your post relates to the post of mine you have quoted.

Sorry about that. I think iserith brought it home for me.


-Brad

Also it occurs to me I misread your point.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Because it's a specific scenario, not a general outlook.

If we can't base our impression of a person's general outlook on the statements they make pertaining to specific scenarios, what short of them declaring their general outlook to us can be considered indications of general outlook?

I mean, maybe other folks are different, but my responses to specific scenarios are the product of my general outlook.

And because, here on the internet, most people state their "common sense" opinions as facts.

So we shouldn't ask for better than that?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

If we can't base our impression of a person's general outlook on the statements they make pertaining to specific scenarios, what short of them declaring their general outlook to us can be considered indications of general outlook?

Because otherwise one could evade being convicted of OneTrueWayism by simply never making a general statement. Right?

I agree about the opinion vs. facts thing, too. One thing that irks me is when somebody states something as a fact, in a way that is dismissive/pedantic, and then when you call them out for it they say, "Well OF COURSE that's just my opinion."

This discussion involves both opinions and facts (or claims to facts, anyway), and the consistent contributors to this thread have all demonstrated competence with the English language. It's easy enough to express a thought as an opinion, so I will interpret apparent statements of fact as just that.