D&D 5E Metagaming Vs the Players

[Imaculata]

I often design my encounters to exploit weaknesses in the party, and to challenge my players. However, the opponents always need to make sense in the setting.

 

[Shiroiken]

Except for specific boss level encounters, I don't even consider the PCs much at all. I seldom even consider the challenge level, focusing instead on what makes sense in game. This makes some fights super easy and others really hard, but it all balances out in the end.

 

[Dragonsbane]

I design vs PCs when a big bad has been watching/spying, or if they have fought him before. Most minions or normal critters I don't do that with, although if a PC is a red dragonborn and a wizard sees that he his red, he might drop a cone of cold.

 

[Oofta]

I design encounters and monsters based on the story and situation. Sometimes that works in the favor of the PCs, sometimes it doesn't.

As the PCs get more famous, intelligent NPCs are more likely to know about them and attempt to exploit their weaknesses.

 

[Richards]

Two campaigns ago the players each had two different PCs in their "stable" and I never knew until game day which PC each of the players would be bringing to the adventure that day. So even had I wanted to tailor-make an enemy to exploit their weaknesses, I wouldn't have known if those weaknesses were even going to be there to exploit that day. But in any case, I tend to build my encounters based on what makes sense in the campaign and on occasion there will be fights where the PCs stomp all over my forces - that's really only to be expected. However, there are also on occasion encounters where the PCs will be outgunned and need to either retreat or change tactics if they want to overcome their enemies.

Johnathan

 

[Imaculata]

I try to design my encounters so that they are fair and level appropriate, but also enough of a challenge that a pc could possibly die. I play out combat with the intent of killing player characters, while giving the players enough tools to turn the situation to their advantage and get the upper hand.

One way I create difficulty, is with multiple objectives, multiple priority targets, varied opponents (melee, range, magic), and terrain designed with the combat encounter in mind. I provide higher ground for my ranged opponents, flank the players with tough melee opponents, and protect my weaker caster opponents behind bodyguards. I make my monsters use the terrain to their advantage, while allowing the players to do the same. A lot of my combat encounters start with the players making an assessment which are the biggest threats, and there are usually a bunch of surprises along the way. The perfect fight has two phases in my book. The second phase should surprise the players, and motivate them to adapt their strategy.

Since my players try to form strategic formations as well, I try to think of ways in which I might smash those plans to tiny bits. For example, in one of the dungeons my players stuck together a lot, to buff and heal each other, while hiding behind their tank. But I had an enemy that could charge into their ranks and explode, dealing splash damage to everyone in the blast radius. I also used monsters that hid in the shadows of the ceiling, and could drop down and attack the backline if they weren't spotted. I try to be sneaky and cruel to allow my monsters to get the upper hand on them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I never metagame for or against the players, but I do:

• Have NPCs lie to or deceive them, whether by saying what is not true or by failing to say the whole truth
• Have the consequences of their own lack of secrecy come back to bite them (they tend to be pretty cagey but not 100% of the time)
• Forget things I've already established (never intentionally, I just forget things) which can lead to Surprises, usually in the party's favor
• Put together opponents that will hopefully be interesting and which vary in focus and abilities so that the party can't just assume they're fully prepared
• Give the party lots of opportunities to do their own research and gird themselves against the most dangerous threats.

My players seem to have been pretty happy with what we've had. I actually almost did TOO well right out of the gate! The very first "boss" was a spell scroll golem that got talked about for months after the party fought it and I worried I had made too tough an act to follow. Fortunately, that has not been the case.

Edit:
Sometimes though, things go wrong. If that happens, I do what I can within the limits of logic and the fiction to produce the most enjoyable experience. I don't use illusionism or fudging, but I will look for ways to address a problem if I've overtuned a fight. This doesn't happen very often and if push comes to shove I will just be honest with my players and we'll work something out. I make mistakes. I won't punish them because I did so, nor will I manipulate the elements of the world to prevent them from ever knowing that I make mistakes.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

One of my greatest gaming memories was playing in a Rolemaster campaign. The party was working for the forces of Good (literally, the forces were all four compass points: Law, Good, Chaos and Evil) We'd fight the agents of Chaos who were designed to be a mirror of our party. It worked out well because, whether we did it or not I can't remember, but we'd end up paired off again someone who wasn't our mirror. I was a ranged-attack paladin and I ended up against the soft squishy spellcasters with a heavy crossbow and specialized bolts, for example. Our speedster ended up against their tank etc. Later in the campaign, we ended up allied to them because a new chaos lord had arrived that needed putting down