D&D 5E Let 'em live or die?

[iserith]

I don't care what you think needs fixing in the anecdote. It's not the point I'm trying to make: that having your character take actions while unconscious using knowledge you could not possibly have is metagaming. That is the beginning, middle, and end of the point being made by the anecdote. Any other discussion is beside that point. The question of improving procedures for intra-party division of treasure is so far afield from the point I'm making that I'm rather certain the locals call it "le champ".

Your anecdote only serves to prove my point though that it's bunk and doesn't serve any good purpose as a concept.

 

[Helldritch]

Strange, What @Bacon Bits describes is exactly what I call metagaming. Having your character react to something he can't possibly know IS the very definition of metagaming. Using rules is not meta (up to a certain point) but using knowledge your character can't have is meta. Treasure sharing is an other matter entirely.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Strange, Whate @Bacon Bits describes is exactly what I call metagaming. Having your character react to something he can't possibly know IS the very definition of metagaming. Using rules is not meta (up to a certain point) but using knowledge your character can't have is meta. Treasure sharing is an other matter entirely.

So, how would you police that? Would you stop the flow of play to tell the player "your character wouldn't know that"?

To me, that punishment is worse than the crime. The DM is seizing control of the character, which is not the DM's job (charm-type spells being the rare exception).

IMO and IME, the only cure for metagaming is for the DM not to worry about metagaming. Provide interesting, engaging challenges for the players' PCs and encourage the players to engage with the game world through those PCs.

Now for a stretch to tie this back to the OP: if a player makes a metagame decision (having played this module before, the player knew the big treasure was hidden behind the secret door in this exact location and rushed to pull the lever!) without really engaging with the game world in good faith, it might prove deadly for their PC (oops, that's where the DM mixed things up and included an exploding glyph that could have been discovered with some basic examination). Assuming the DM set the expectation in Session 0 that players shouldn't rely solely on their own knowledge and should engage with the game world via their PCs, and that PC death is on the table, I'd say that PC stays dead. Ok, I said it was a stretch!

 

[Helldritch]

My players would not do that. BUT
If one of them wanted to use such meta as @Bacon Bits showed us; I would go out my way to stop it and so would the other players. It would just simply not be acceptable at our table.

As for you example of a player trying to use his knowledge of the dungeon, been there done that. I simply change room contents, add rooms and remove some. It works wonders to confuse such a player and it helps to discover them very fast. The secret door might just become a trap door in an other corner of the room. After that, there would be a nice talk to set things straight with that player.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

My players would not do that. BUT
If one of them wanted to use such meta as @Bacon Bits showed us; I would go out my way to stop it and so would the other players. It would just simply not be acceptable at our table.

In the "PC was asleep" example, our table would just move on from it, if it happened at all. Perhaps the snoozing PC awoke to the sound of coins jingling or excited talking amongst the other party members or just sensed the magic items or whatever the player wishes to come up with since it is their job to describe what their PC is doing in the game world. There are countless in-fiction ways to explain it (or other situations like it). Anyone else at the table saying "your character wouldn't think/do/say that" is stepping out of bounds, potentially leading to an interruption in the flow of play that ruins the mood of an otherwise fun game, IMO.

As for you example of a player trying to use his knowledge of the dungeon, been there done that. I simply change room contents, add rooms and remove some. It works wonders to confuse such a player and it helps to discover them very fast. The secret door might just become a trap door in an other corner of the room. After that, there would be a nice talk to set things straight with that player.

To be clear, I don't do such things to "out" metagamers, which I'm interpreting has happened at your table. I do such things (when I'm inclined to, which isn't really that much) to keep the experience fresh and interesting for those that may have played a scenario before (including myself as DM). The "nice talk" for our table would be a simple, quick reminder to the player to engage with the game world with their PC. Use whatever player knowledge you like, but proceeding with an action without testing those out-of-game assumptions is at your PC's risk. And we move on.

 

[Helldritch]

In the "PC was asleep" example, our table would just move on from it, if it happened at all. Perhaps the snoozing PC awoke to the sound of coins jingling or excited talking amongst the other party members or just sensed the magic items or whatever the player wishes to come up with since it is their job to describe what their PC is doing in the game world. There are countless in-fiction ways to explain it (or other situations like it). Anyone else at the table saying "your character wouldn't think/do/say that" is stepping out of bounds, potentially leading to an interruption in the flow of play that ruins the mood of an otherwise fun game, IMO.

And that is why such attitude would not pass at all at my table.
Yes it might mean that one game would be a bit "less" fun. But it would be to ensure the fun of future games.

To be clear, I don't do such things to "out" metagamers, which I'm interpreting has happened at your table. I do such things (when I'm inclined to, which isn't really that much) to keep the experience fresh and interesting for those that may have played a scenario before (including myself as DM). The "nice talk" for our table would be a simple, quick reminder to the player to engage with the game world with their PC. Use whatever player knowledge you like, but proceeding with an action without testing those out-of-game assumptions is at your PC's risk. And we move on.

It was happening years ago when I could have more than 14 different groups (I was introducing a lot of people into the hobby, and groups would be from 5 to 6 players strong) with some groups playing once per two weeks. Some thought themselves clever and would buy the adventure from the hobby shop and would read (those who could read English that is, I speak French ) and use that knowledge to get an "edge". By the time I could make these players understand that no one "wins" an RPG, I did have quite a lot of fun foiling them .

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And that is why such attitude would not pass at all at my table.
Yes it might mean that one game would be a bit "less" fun. But it would be to ensure the fun of future games.

I think you're missing my point. Worrying about metagaming is thing causing the pain. Encouraging players to just engage with the fiction relieves the pain. It's counterintuitive but works: the less you, as the DM, worry about metagaming, the less it actually shows up at your table. IME, at least.

It was happening years ago when I could have more than 14 different groups (I was introducing a lot of people into the hobby, and groups would be from 5 to 6 players strong) with some groups playing once per two weeks. Some thought themselves clever and would buy the adventure from the hobby shop and would read (those who could read English that is, I speak French ) and use that knowledge to get an "edge". By the time I could make these players understand that no one "wins" an RPG, I did have quite a lot of fun foiling them .

Bad faith play will ruin any style. Try to separate the concept of metagaming (using player info to inform game decisions) from cheating (true bad faith stuff like buying the adventure path to read as a player, fudging dice, intentionally not recording HP or spells slots used) and you are part way there.
I am chuckling at imagining their faces when you mixed things up on them, though.

 

[Helldritch]

I think you're missing my point. Worrying about metagaming is thing causing the pain. Encouraging players to just engage with the fiction relieves the pain. It's counterintuitive but works: the less you, as the DM, worry about metagaming, the less it actually shows up at your table. IME, at least.


Bad faith play will ruin any style. Try to separate the concept of metagaming (using player info to inform game decisions) from cheating (true bad faith stuff like buying the adventure path to read as a player, fudging dice, intentionally not recording HP or spells slots used) and you are part way there.
I am chuckling at imagining their faces when you mixed things up on them, though.

I haven't have a case of Metagaming in years. I clearly state my stance on it every single time I introduce a new player in one of my groups (which have been fairly constant for about 10 years now). So I don't stress myself about metagaming.

And Badfaith is now non existant in my games, as I have been playing with the same groups for 10 years now. We used to make games in at the hobby store (but not since covid) where young or inexperienced (and even parents) could see us play and we would answer questions about what we were doing, how and why. We would answer rule questions, tactics and whatever might come up in their mind. And the case of but if the player knows the adventure... comes out a lot of time. Quite a lot. We'll see if it is still a thing when the covid is over.