Is it "metagaming" to remind a player their power works on a miss?

[Storminator]

Isn't it the DM's job to adjudicate the rules? Therefore, isn't it the DM's job to apply the affect of the miss damage even if the player forgets the rules?

Once when we were fighting swarms our wizard forgot to announce which of his powers were area attacks (getting the extra damage vs swarms) until his 3rd attack, when he said "hey, that's an area attack! So were those others, I just forgot!" and our DM responded "but I didn't." That's good DMing.

PS

 

[Bodhiwolff]

Metagaming or not (and really, the term isn't important in this case) it is just a simple situation of players reminding other players of the rules.

How often does one player help another player remember that they have a +2 to hit due to combat advantage, or a +1 from another player's buff, pushing them over the edge and turning that miss into a hit. Those are situations where one player turns a miss into a damage-dealing blow, by reminding the primary player of a rule.

So here you had a situation where another player reminded the primary player of a rule, and turned a miss into a damage-dealing blow.

Hopefully those situations also don't raise your DM's ire!

 

[wayne62682]

Hopefully those situations also don't raise your DM's ire!

They do, unfortunately. He's said as much if someone else reminded me that I had a +1 to AC from the Cleric's Priest Shield power, because he says their character wouldn't know the benefit it provides (that doesn't make a lick of sense to me; if I've fought with the cleric for months now and seen him use this power that bolsters my defense, I'd recognize it on sight and know I have its effect [maybe it's an aura, or something]).

Like I said, I don't want to make it out like my DM is being a jerk, because he has noble intentions (of course, you know what they say about good intentions...) and is trying to get all of us to track things better. But like, if we forget a side effect, he won't remind us and it will have no effect, and doesn't like for another player to point it out (like I did).

 

[MichaelK]

I know this isn't from 4e, but I trust basic etiquette is much the same.

DMG 3.5 page 13.

"No matter how well you know the rules, though, a player might remember some point that didn't occur to you. Most players, quite properly, won't lord it over you if they know some rules better than you do. If someone else at the table corrects your recollection of the rules or adds some point you hadn't thought of, thank that player for his help. When people cooperate to make the game better, everyone benefits."

 

[Nifft]

Start giving your character bonuses that he shouldn't actually get.

When the DM tells you "no", look him in the eye and reply... "My character wouldn't know that the Cleric's power only works on a hit, so I get the +5."

That makes exactly as much sense.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Pseudonym]

Like I said, I don't want to make it out like my DM is being a jerk

It's sure coming off that way, though. Is your DM new to DMing? He seems a bit confused about what is and isn't metagaming. Does he allow Heal checks on fallen characters? After all, triggering a healing surge is "meta-gaming" by his definition.

 

[ST]

I think when players talk about what's going on in the game mechanics... that's just called 'gaming'.

Seriously, though, the concern I'd have here is that it hints at the DM not really being comfortable with the system. Not so much the rules as the approach the rules use to the fiction. It's just the kind of thing you might hear from a DM who's trying for 'total immersion' (you the *player* shouldn't think about the rules you're actually using, because then you might somehow forget you're not really that fictional character?)

 

[I'm A Banana]

This seems totally ridiculous to me.

It is. This isn't metagaming, really, it's not conversation in-character. You're allowed to say things at the table that aren't in-character, right?

The call was a bad one. Reminding people of the rules is good play, generally speaking.

 

[Greg K]

As a DM that dislikes metagaming at the table, I don't really consider this metagaming. It's simply reminding someone of an additional effect from something they have already done.

 

[Ariosto]

Start giving your character bonuses that he shouldn't actually get.

[/rotflmao]

It blows my mind that someone would approach these particular rules with such an attitude as that DM. I could see putting the kibosh on kibitzing if, and explicitly because, it were slowing play too much. Most often, I think it just helps to keep things going smoothly. Such advice is par for the course in the 4E games I have played. "Did you include bonus x?" comes up all the time.

It's up to the player whether to take the advice, of course. In the first session I played, we had a KIA from "friendly fire" of an Acid Arrow.