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

[Maxperson]

I don't see how applying player skill (knowledge) is thinking of the game as a game.

It involves the player thinking about purely game knowledge(book stats) and trying to work that advantage into the game. That's thinking of the game as a game. It's gamist behavior.

 

[iserith]

It involves the player thinking about purely game knowledge(book stats) and trying to work that advantage into the game. That's thinking of the game as a game. It's gamist behavior.

It is establishing what the character thinks and how it acts, which is roleplaying.

And gamist? Talk about waffle. Now we're using GNS terms? No thanks!

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. I always want waffles.

Only if I get to pull real maple syrup out of a fire.

 

[Corwin]

It involves the player thinking about purely game knowledge(book stats) and trying to work that advantage into the game. That's thinking of the game as a game. It's gamist behavior.

So how does a player determine things like, whether his character's attack is successful, or how close his character is to dying? That is, I mean without game knowledge (book stats), or thinking of the game as a game, of course.

 

[Maxperson]

So how does a player determine things like, whether his character's attack is successful, or how close his character is to dying? That is, I mean without game knowledge (book stats), or thinking of the game as a game, of course.

I already answered this.

 

[Corwin]

I already answered this.

By metagaming. Exactly. That's why your definition is broad to the point of uselessness.

 

[Maxperson]

By metagaming. Exactly. That's why your definition is broad to the point of uselessness.

Er, no. Go back and re-read. At least not by my definition. The overly broad one put forth by WotC would qualify it as metagaming.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I apologize to everyone for making a liar out of myself, but I saw something that I really can't just let lie...

Every edition of D&D thinks so. They supply lore for animals.

Where is the 5th edition supply of lore for animals? I've just checked my Monster Manual, specifically looking at wolves, and found only a stat block - no lore to speak of. Is my copy of the book a misprint?

 

[Maxperson]

I apologize to everyone for making a liar out of myself, but I saw something that I really can't just let lie...

Where is the 5th edition supply of lore for animals? I've just checked my Monster Manual, specifically looking at wolves, and found only a stat block - no lore to speak of. Is my copy of the book a misprint?

Okay. So I was wrong about 5e. I have limited play time with this edition and haven't run it yet, so I got something wrong. ::shrug::

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't see how applying player skill (knowledge) is thinking of the game as a game. It's just establishing how the character thinks which is what players have to do in order to roleplay. Just because you think that a character can't take an action because it could only do so by having particular knowledge that it "shouldn't" have (which in most cases is a completely indefensible position anyway due to the breadth of possibilities in which they could have that knowledge) doesn't mean the player is thinking of the game as a game.

And again, the "metagame thinking" section says nothing about character knowledge. For someone who wants to argue that there needs to be lore about wolves being afraid of fire for the wolves to be afraid of fire RAW, you sure seem to be loose on your interpretation of this section of the DMG... I wonder why?

An example you've given is that a player has played through a given adventure before. If that player applies previously learned knowledge to the current gane, it is 9nlu because he's treating the game as a game. Ergo, definition is broad enough to cover this.

You're interpretation is just that, an interpretation. As the words are vague, it's even a good one. But so is Max's. That paragraph on metagaming is vague enough that it supports both of your views.