Metagaming is bad.

[hexgrid]

From another thread:

Metagaming is bad.

This was given in response to the suggestion that an NPC would be designed around the reality of how it will be used in a combat encounter.

Do you think this sort of metagaming really bad? I would argue that it would be nigh-imposible to provide an enjoyable session for the players without all sorts of "metagaming" on the side of the DM.

 

[Shade]

I don't consider tricking out the adversaries to be effective combatants to be metagaming in a bad way.

What would cross the line would be customizing NPCs to negate all the PC's best abilities or taking advantage of all their weaknesses.

 

[Vuron]

From another thread:



This was given in response to the suggestion that an NPC would be designed around the reality of how it will be used in a combat encounter.

Do you think this sort of metagaming really bad? I would argue that it would be nigh-imposible to provide an enjoyable session for the players without all sorts of "metagaming" on the side of the DM.

I think the problem being expressed is the trap of designing NPC foes who never take certain feats and abilities because they are one shot wonders or designing NPCs specifically designed to counter PC abilities.

In the first case Metagaming might help provide greater challenges for the PCs but when used to excess significantly increase the CR of an encounter. Sometimes NPCs are going to have item creation feats (after all someone needs to make all those items) even though they are dead weight in combat situations.

In the second case having the DM metagame your PCs abilities away tends to reduce player enjoyment. If it's done in good faith such as the recurring villain of the campaign having better defenses vs the party or someone with access to significant divination having insight into the party's tactics it's generally all good. However consistently using encounters in anti-magic in order to negate a powerful pc spellcaster, etc are pretty much dirty pool and should be avoided.

 

[Sejs]

This was given in response to the suggestion that an NPC would be designed around the reality of how it will be used in a combat encounter.

Do you think this sort of metagaming really bad? I

Actually it was given in response to the suggestion that an NPC be designed around the reality of how it won't ever survive a single encounter with the PCs. That there's no point in making an opponent with resources that extend beyond their single flash of appearance before they're cut down, gutted, and have their exp glands devoured by ravenous player characters.

Why would an NPC ever carry a wand? He'll never live long enough to use all 50 charges. Food? Change of clothes? Memorize spells that have a use beyond those that deal with harassing the PCs? No point at all, right?

That kind of metagaming is bad.

 

[Johnnie Freedom!]

I'm not convinced that DMs really *can* metagame, in the strict sense. Metagaming, at least in my experience, has everything to do with how the *players* approach the game.

In the heat of battle, if one player says to another, "Dude, these orcs are kickin' our asses. How many hit points do you have left?" that's metagaming.

But if the DM thinks, "Hmmm, they are low on hit points. Perhaps I should ease up" (or whatever), then I would call that not metagaming, but DMing.

 

[Mark CMG]

This was given in response to the suggestion that an NPC would be designed around the reality of how it will be used (. . .)

I had a group metagame in that manner and immediately dismiss a possible solution to a puzzle that subsequently caused the death of half the party. I often warn players not to metagame to the exclusion of all else. Sometimes players listen. Sometimes characters die.


The term "metagaming" doesn't apply to DMs, IMO.

 

[Sejs]

I'm not convinced that DMs really *can* metagame, in the strict sense. Metagaming, at least in my experience, has everything to do with how the *players* approach the game.

I disagree to a point. There are degrees of metagaming, granted. Some of it comes down to just not phrasing things in context. One PC asking another how many hp he has left is ultimately the same thing as asking the guy if he's hurt too bad of if he think he can press on. That sort of thing isn't in the same ballpark as a group of players saying that oh, they can take (whatever) because the DM wouldn't throw a challenge at them that they can't handle. Or acting on out of character knowledge, particularly when it comes to more esoteric things such as odd monster vulnerabilities when their character doesn't know anything about the critter in question.

That's one side of the metagaming coin. The other is as I mentioned earlier, the DM designing things with its niche existance in mind. All enemies fighting to the death, designed in such a way that they have no existance beyond being spawned in to harass the PCs, continually throwing enemies designed speciffically to negate player abilities, etc.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm not convinced that DMs really *can* metagame, in the strict sense. Metagaming, at least in my experience, has everything to do with how the *players* approach the game.

I agree. The DM has to metagame to provide a suitable challenge to the players, especially with a situation like this.

Metagaming is only a problem when players use game knowledge to know something that their character wouldn't know, or to use that knowledge as a player not as a character.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I agree. The DM has to metagame to provide a suitable challenge to the players, especially with a situation like this.

I agree. Putting the PCs up against challenges appropriate to their level requires "metagaming" but wildly inappropriate challenges would either be boring or TPKs.

 

[takyris]

A kind of internal compromise I use is to only partially design an NPC. Sure, I know that he's a 10th level fighter with Power Attack, Great Cleave, and Sunder, but I leave two or three feats unchecked. Yes, he's technically designed for the encounter, but "Guy good at hitting" is not so specific that that's metagaming.

As a DM, I encourage metagaming within certain parameters. I assume that (combatwise), people know how their world works. They know whether they swung well or poorly, and they know whether they hit or missed. After a few attacks, I've got no problem with somebody saying "Okay, we're shooting for AC 21," and altering their Power Attack accordingly... because heck, when I'm sparring in real life, I know whether I'm hitting somebody meaningfully a lot, and I know whether it's worth trying a stronger but slower strike to hit a little harder.

On the other hand, I'm against, say, the wizard knowing that devils are weak against electricity unless he's got a few ranks in the appropriate Knowledge skill. (And if they do have that kind of knowledge, I'll help the player out -- like when I helped the sorcerer NOT use his Empowered Shocking Grasp on the half-blue dragon frost giant.)