KnowTheToe
First Post
kengar said:
I personally add bonuses to the AC and or saving throws of the baddies. If the PCs are shouting their intentions across the battlefield, then it will definitely effect the actions of their opponents.
Metagaming
- Thread starter Kestrel
- Start date
I personally add bonuses to the AC and or saving throws of the baddies. If the PCs are shouting their intentions across the battlefield, then it will definitely effect the actions of their opponents.
Drawmack
First Post
I use a preinitiative. But I do it a bit differently then most DMs. During preinitiative you tell me what the other players and my monsters can tell from a glance at you and I tell the players the same about my monsters. At this time people are allowed to speak one sentence during someone else's statement. Things like I'm going to be there. These statements are kept to things like I'm going to stay engaged in battle, I'm going to move that way, I'm going to cast a spell, etc. Then on your turn you go and what you do had better be in accordance with your preinitiative statement. This puts enough of a limit on metagaming for me.
Kestrel wrote this email to another group he plays in, but I DM him in another group and he CCed me on this email.
In my game I brought up the subject of metagaming when I noticed the game was becoming more a wargame than dungeons and dragons. I almost considered implementing a rule my friend Orcus uses - you tell someone else what to do, the entire party is henceforth unable to do that action. Instead, I decided that I would voice my concern and brought the issue up. Fortunately I have a great group of players and the issue resolved itself without having to resort to the "O rule."
As for the subject of metagaming, it is hard on one level to limit actions to what the PCs knows and what the player knows. A perfect example would be if I set up an entire dungeon with Dwarven Forge ahead of time, revealing it to all players. The players thereafter immediately take a right after entering and go to a corner and say, we search here - where a secret door is set up leading to the treasure trove. My point is there is always going to be outside input a player knows or recognizes because of similar prior encounters - but this input shouldn't be known by the PC. I think it is hard to act on limited knowledge, but that makes a great roleplayer.
As far as PCs having prior knowledge of a monsters weakness, if someone says they are going to use fire on a troll - I ask for them to explain to me on the spot how the PC would know that -or- sometimes I have them make a wilderness lore/knowledge (arcana)(if appropriate) check. If the explanation is viable, I allow the action. If it isn't, they cannot use fire.
In my game I brought up the subject of metagaming when I noticed the game was becoming more a wargame than dungeons and dragons. I almost considered implementing a rule my friend Orcus uses - you tell someone else what to do, the entire party is henceforth unable to do that action. Instead, I decided that I would voice my concern and brought the issue up. Fortunately I have a great group of players and the issue resolved itself without having to resort to the "O rule."
As for the subject of metagaming, it is hard on one level to limit actions to what the PCs knows and what the player knows. A perfect example would be if I set up an entire dungeon with Dwarven Forge ahead of time, revealing it to all players. The players thereafter immediately take a right after entering and go to a corner and say, we search here - where a secret door is set up leading to the treasure trove. My point is there is always going to be outside input a player knows or recognizes because of similar prior encounters - but this input shouldn't be known by the PC. I think it is hard to act on limited knowledge, but that makes a great roleplayer.
As far as PCs having prior knowledge of a monsters weakness, if someone says they are going to use fire on a troll - I ask for them to explain to me on the spot how the PC would know that -or- sometimes I have them make a wilderness lore/knowledge (arcana)(if appropriate) check. If the explanation is viable, I allow the action. If it isn't, they cannot use fire.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
My explanation to the troll problem?
Trolls are fairly common. They are also fairly scary. Tales of groups who faced trolls would probably be quite common. I doubt many of these tales would leave out the bit where they consider their enemy dead, and he comes back to life, so the second time round, they burn the corpse.
Most of the critters in the MM are old-style fairy tales. I know that there were a lot of them that I knew of, way before I started D&D. I also know that I don't live in a society where telling tales of monsters is a huge part of the culture. I'd expect the average peasant would have heard a great many monster tales if monsters truely existed.
Apparently, that's why they don't have a knowledge:monsters skill - because you'd then need to create rules to limit how much the players knew about the monsters.
Next up - metawargaming. Is it too much to believe that the characters spend some of the many, many hours of their lives which are not roleplayed discussing their tactics as an adventuring group? I'd suggest that if you have a serious problem with it, then you point the party bard/mage towards the 'message' spell.
The problem comes when players/characters who are not present at a scene influence the scene. Typically this happens during negotiations - the character doing the negotiating is played by someone who is not particularly suited, and the other players feel the need to interject.
I have invented a system for dealing with this sort of stuff.
Physical stats and skills are wholly represented by game mechanics, and thus are simple to adjudicate.
Mental stats and skills are far more difficult. Would the character with 18 wis and 18 int REALLY light a match to see what the funny smelling gas is, just because the player said so? On the side of the DM, this is made a little easier - the DM can roll some metagaming into his game in order to have his bad guy's a bit more prepared. However the players don't have that option.
I'd suggest that a player can get advice from the other players IF their character's appropriate stat or skill is higher than the character of the player giving advice.
I'd also suggest limiting discussions like this to instances where the player asks for advice.
This way, the smartest, or most charismatic, or wisest character has a brains trust of players to draw on. He will typically be able to have the best ideas etc. The thickest, most offensive and most foolish character won't. Even if the most foolish character occasionally has a good idea, the smartest character will have more good ideas than him.
Trolls are fairly common. They are also fairly scary. Tales of groups who faced trolls would probably be quite common. I doubt many of these tales would leave out the bit where they consider their enemy dead, and he comes back to life, so the second time round, they burn the corpse.
Most of the critters in the MM are old-style fairy tales. I know that there were a lot of them that I knew of, way before I started D&D. I also know that I don't live in a society where telling tales of monsters is a huge part of the culture. I'd expect the average peasant would have heard a great many monster tales if monsters truely existed.
Apparently, that's why they don't have a knowledge:monsters skill - because you'd then need to create rules to limit how much the players knew about the monsters.
Next up - metawargaming. Is it too much to believe that the characters spend some of the many, many hours of their lives which are not roleplayed discussing their tactics as an adventuring group? I'd suggest that if you have a serious problem with it, then you point the party bard/mage towards the 'message' spell.
The problem comes when players/characters who are not present at a scene influence the scene. Typically this happens during negotiations - the character doing the negotiating is played by someone who is not particularly suited, and the other players feel the need to interject.
I have invented a system for dealing with this sort of stuff.
Physical stats and skills are wholly represented by game mechanics, and thus are simple to adjudicate.
Mental stats and skills are far more difficult. Would the character with 18 wis and 18 int REALLY light a match to see what the funny smelling gas is, just because the player said so? On the side of the DM, this is made a little easier - the DM can roll some metagaming into his game in order to have his bad guy's a bit more prepared. However the players don't have that option.
I'd suggest that a player can get advice from the other players IF their character's appropriate stat or skill is higher than the character of the player giving advice.
I'd also suggest limiting discussions like this to instances where the player asks for advice.
This way, the smartest, or most charismatic, or wisest character has a brains trust of players to draw on. He will typically be able to have the best ideas etc. The thickest, most offensive and most foolish character won't. Even if the most foolish character occasionally has a good idea, the smartest character will have more good ideas than him.
Happy Monkey
First Post
Firstly, Kestrel, the email seems fine enough. None but the irredeemable would take offense.
Meta-gaming is a problem as far as I am concerned. If it is good enough for my DM to run adversaries that blunder because of not being able to warn each other, it is good enough for players.
As both a player and DM, I try hard not to metagame. Yes it is hard and there are many 50/50 calls. There are also times when it is obvious and these are the times that i take exception to.
I don't have any in-game penalties or the like, my reason is that it is not an IC issue. Simply I won't play, either as a DM or a player if there is blatant meta-gaming. I'd discuss the issue before packing up, I am not at all keen to leave, but this power gaming munchkin wants a believable world to exist within.
Basically meta-gaming is NOT playing D&D in my view and I don't troop half-way across Wellington to not play.
Meta-gaming is a problem as far as I am concerned. If it is good enough for my DM to run adversaries that blunder because of not being able to warn each other, it is good enough for players.
As both a player and DM, I try hard not to metagame. Yes it is hard and there are many 50/50 calls. There are also times when it is obvious and these are the times that i take exception to.
I don't have any in-game penalties or the like, my reason is that it is not an IC issue. Simply I won't play, either as a DM or a player if there is blatant meta-gaming. I'd discuss the issue before packing up, I am not at all keen to leave, but this power gaming munchkin wants a believable world to exist within.
Basically meta-gaming is NOT playing D&D in my view and I don't troop half-way across Wellington to not play.
Last edited:
I find this anti-metagaming idea truly baffling. So what if a character in combat wouldn't normally be able to get the other characters' advice or if people anticipate things about a monster that they could only know by reading the Monster Manual.
The characters, by virtue of being characters have to contend with these huge memory gaps that happen every few hours/days in their lives where what they were doing just a second before seems like a vaguely remembered event that took place a week or more ago. They also have to contend with hanging out with people with whom they'd rather not associate if it were really their decision. They have to take stupid risks all the time, constantly putting their lives on the line as high-risk, potentially lethal events seem to follow them everywhere they go. They sometimes find themselves unable to recall people's names or even fairly obvious facts about their own country, religion or even neighbourhood.
The ONLY kind of metagaming I oppose is when characters act as though they're aware they are characters in a game. And even then, the occasional meta-game sidebar can bring levity. I recall one of my favourite scenes in a game was in module G1 when my character was hit with a fireball shot from a Necklace of Fireballs and attacked its wielder shouting "Stop using up our treasure!"
DMs, if you think your characters' metagaming is allowing them to solve your adventures more easily than you'd like, the solution is simple: make tougher adventures.
The characters, by virtue of being characters have to contend with these huge memory gaps that happen every few hours/days in their lives where what they were doing just a second before seems like a vaguely remembered event that took place a week or more ago. They also have to contend with hanging out with people with whom they'd rather not associate if it were really their decision. They have to take stupid risks all the time, constantly putting their lives on the line as high-risk, potentially lethal events seem to follow them everywhere they go. They sometimes find themselves unable to recall people's names or even fairly obvious facts about their own country, religion or even neighbourhood.
The ONLY kind of metagaming I oppose is when characters act as though they're aware they are characters in a game. And even then, the occasional meta-game sidebar can bring levity. I recall one of my favourite scenes in a game was in module G1 when my character was hit with a fireball shot from a Necklace of Fireballs and attacked its wielder shouting "Stop using up our treasure!"
DMs, if you think your characters' metagaming is allowing them to solve your adventures more easily than you'd like, the solution is simple: make tougher adventures.
Happy Monkey
First Post
Fusangite, I don't have any issue with the characters succeeding in their adventures, that is after all the ideal that they should always have the possibility of doing so.
In regard to your second paragraph, I as a DM expect more from my players (and myself). If a character (npcs too) won't fit in with their party, well the character needs to be changed or I'll instruct the player to make a more compatible character. Essentially every character need a reason to be doing what they are doing. This is simply the style of play I enjoy the most often. Players are encouraged to make notes in 'journals' about stuff they hear or people they meet. If they can't remember it is generally too bad for them.
Monster knowledge is handled a bit like the knowledge skills for general stuff but usually your character would need to approach a scholar/expert. Players looking up stats of monsters is akin IMO to a DM looking up the character sheet for monster tactics. I would pack a sad outside the game because this is a double standard. As a DM I change stats already but this is only because I like to throw curve balls for fun, not to thwart player knowledge.
Meta-gaming is to me an insult. It wrecks any imagination and means that the meta-gamer isn't playing on the same wave length.
I do accept that there will be meta-gaming and that there is even good meta-gaming, usually involved with party unity. I'll usually let stuff slide, no point with the 50/50 stuff that most of it is.
Anyway...
In regard to your second paragraph, I as a DM expect more from my players (and myself). If a character (npcs too) won't fit in with their party, well the character needs to be changed or I'll instruct the player to make a more compatible character. Essentially every character need a reason to be doing what they are doing. This is simply the style of play I enjoy the most often. Players are encouraged to make notes in 'journals' about stuff they hear or people they meet. If they can't remember it is generally too bad for them.
Monster knowledge is handled a bit like the knowledge skills for general stuff but usually your character would need to approach a scholar/expert. Players looking up stats of monsters is akin IMO to a DM looking up the character sheet for monster tactics. I would pack a sad outside the game because this is a double standard. As a DM I change stats already but this is only because I like to throw curve balls for fun, not to thwart player knowledge.
Meta-gaming is to me an insult. It wrecks any imagination and means that the meta-gamer isn't playing on the same wave length.
I do accept that there will be meta-gaming and that there is even good meta-gaming, usually involved with party unity. I'll usually let stuff slide, no point with the 50/50 stuff that most of it is.
Anyway...
Might want to narrow down things a bit: What sorts of metagaming are you talking about?
Player knowledge of information (eg. spells and monsters) the PCs don't know about is a no-no in my book. In fact, that's one of the reasons I picked up EQ RPG, rather than D&D. Thankfully, the Knowledge skills help out. And, yes, I will change monsters and spells (at least those cast by NPCs) on they fly. No, players who metagame information can get p*ssed off about that.
Player advice to other players is reasonable enough to me. Many a player **doesn't** know how to use their class effectively, and the 3e combat rules **are** complicated.
Player assumptions of immortality is a PITA. NPC Essentials has some advice about fighting stronger opponents, but I like the "Warning Shot" approach: One warning how tough the monster is, then kill the PCs. For example, you could have an NPC ally who's a caricature of what you dislike in player roleplaying. Then have **him** to be the first person to charge the demon, and have the demon pick him up, tear his head off, suck out the eyeballs, then make a speech.
Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^
Player knowledge of information (eg. spells and monsters) the PCs don't know about is a no-no in my book. In fact, that's one of the reasons I picked up EQ RPG, rather than D&D. Thankfully, the Knowledge skills help out. And, yes, I will change monsters and spells (at least those cast by NPCs) on they fly. No, players who metagame information can get p*ssed off about that.
Player advice to other players is reasonable enough to me. Many a player **doesn't** know how to use their class effectively, and the 3e combat rules **are** complicated.
Player assumptions of immortality is a PITA. NPC Essentials has some advice about fighting stronger opponents, but I like the "Warning Shot" approach: One warning how tough the monster is, then kill the PCs. For example, you could have an NPC ally who's a caricature of what you dislike in player roleplaying. Then have **him** to be the first person to charge the demon, and have the demon pick him up, tear his head off, suck out the eyeballs, then make a speech.
Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^
I must be the minority around here....
As both as DM and Player I "meta-game" though battles. For the simple reason that the players may not be fully aware of what the character can do. In our group this is standard. Those of us with a deeper understanding of the rules will always point out options that those that are less familiar with the rules may not see. However, it is up to the player to decide the final course of action.
But then my group may be a bunch of wargaming Gorgnards.
Of course, I admit I can at times speak way out. "He, this is a WotC Adventurs, that means the Guard is a bunch of level 1 Wariors. What do we need to worry about them for?" Granted we did not ever go up against the Guards, it was more a comment on the adventure as writen.
Though we do have a small code of honor. If we do have metagame knowledge on some monster, then leave it to fate (some roll) to decide if our character knows that knowledge as well.
-The Luddite
As both as DM and Player I "meta-game" though battles. For the simple reason that the players may not be fully aware of what the character can do. In our group this is standard. Those of us with a deeper understanding of the rules will always point out options that those that are less familiar with the rules may not see. However, it is up to the player to decide the final course of action.
But then my group may be a bunch of wargaming Gorgnards.
Of course, I admit I can at times speak way out. "He, this is a WotC Adventurs, that means the Guard is a bunch of level 1 Wariors. What do we need to worry about them for?" Granted we did not ever go up against the Guards, it was more a comment on the adventure as writen.
Though we do have a small code of honor. If we do have metagame knowledge on some monster, then leave it to fate (some roll) to decide if our character knows that knowledge as well.
-The Luddite
Similar Threads
