D&D 5E Oops, Players Accidentally See Solution to Exploration Challenge

[Charlaquin]

Informed by your experience isn't the same as informed by direct knowledge of this particular event. Metagaming is more the later.

I outlined how you would choose to travel in a way which 1) does not use the direct player knowledge, and 2) does not force you to act specifically contrary to what your player knowledge would suggest is the best choice. You didn't seem to talk about that part of my response so I will repeat it in hopes we can drill down on that issue - since I think it's the heart of this issue:

"However they made decisions about which direction to head prior to the player finding out that information, that's the same decision they should make now. So if they were using tracks to follow, or trying to keep below the hills to not be seen from afar, or staying on the hill to try and see ahead, or trying to stay out of difficult terrain, or avoiding areas where there could be an ambush, or all the things which go into overland travel - those are the same things they should use now. "

Your decision in that situation is still being informed by your knowledge of the safe path. Again, simply by making a conscious decision not to follow the safe path you know is there, your knowledge of the path is informing that decision.

So I didn't say you act specifically contrary to what your player knowledge would suggest is the best choice - I said you should choose to take WHATEVER path it was your character would have chosen to take BUT-FOR you as a player having seen that map. That might still be the safest path if your character was likely going to choose those travel tactics and strategies. You should be able to make that determination. There are not that many factors in play. You know how you were playing your character before, you know the tactics and strategies they were using for overland travel before, so why can't you just do those same things?

You can do those same things, but once you know where the safe path is, you are necessarily choosing either to take the safe path you know is there or to not take it. Regardless of your reasoning for doing either, and regardless of if it’s consistent with the navigation tactics you had been using before (if you were even using any specific tactics,) the knowledge of the path was still a factor in that decision making process.

Be informed by your general experience as opposed to that particular direct knowledge.

You are informed by all information you have access to. That’s just how human brains work.

 

[aco175]

I would just pick the best encounter and have it hit them no mater which way they turned.

 

[Istbor]

I would just pick the best encounter and have it hit them no mater which way they turned.

Ah yes, the quantum Ogre. Not saying it is a bad thing, I just like thinking about it.

As DM, I would probably let them proceed however they want, then make some random encounter rolls behind the screen. Unless there is some plot important encounters they are anticipated to run into, then they would also run the chance of having that.

As a player, I would probably joke with the DM if we were friends, and then continue on as normal. Plus, hey, it isn't like I am actually going to remember all of that anyhow.

 

[Mistwell]

Your decision in that situation is still being informed by your knowledge of the safe path. Again, simply by making a conscious decision not to follow the safe path you know is there, your knowledge of the path is informing that decision.

This seems like a very academic and philosophical response but it's not really addressing the issue. If I say "do what you would have done without this information" how is your in-game path "informed" by your knowledge of the safe path? I gave you concrete examples, so tell me a concrete example of how you'd make a different choice under these circumstances because of being "informed" by your knowledge? If it doesn't change the result, it's not really a meaningful alteration of anything.

You can do those same things, but once you know where the safe path is, you are necessarily choosing either to take the safe path you know is there or to not take it. Regardless of your reasoning for doing either, and regardless of if it’s consistent with the navigation tactics you had been using before (if you were even using any specific tactics,) the knowledge of the path was still a factor in that decision making process.

It doesn't though. I will give you the specific example, and you tell me the point where something has changed because of your knowledge:

Characters have been traveling overland quite a bit while adventuring. At first they sort of blundered forward but with experience they ended up with a set of strategies as follows: When traveling in unsafe and unknown overland territory the warlocks familiar flies up while invisible, staying in range of the warlock, and telepathically communicates the layout ahead and any potential threats to the warlock. Baring any threat or other known obstacles, the party tries to stay on low lying territory behind hills and trees and rocks to avoid detection by hidden foes, with a specific marching order which places a fighter-type in front which has a high perception, a fighter-type in rear, and the cleric in the middle, with the rogue and warlock between a cleric and a fighter-type. They will, using the reports from the familiar, maneuver around any difficult terrain or dangerous terrains like bogs and swamps and sandpits, and will take advantage of cover like forests and larger rocks.

Using this set of strategies and tactics, and comparing it to a map, you can tell pretty well what path the party will follow. Even without role playing it, you can just look at a map, apply this plan, and likely figure out a path the party will take. In this example, they'd follow a gully between hills, avoid a swamp to travel over to a forest, skirt the forest to get to some rocks, and only cross open terrain at points F and H on a map.

So now we know pretty well what the party would do if the players do not know the safe path. Once you introduce metagaming knowledge of a safe path - I am saying you still follow the path which they would have followed without that metagaming knowledge. WHICH MIGHT BE THE SAFEST PATH. We don't know if that path which is mapped out based on their usual plans is the safest or not.

You tell me how anything meaningful has changed in the game as a result of the metagaming knowledge using this concept? Don't be generic of "oh well they're still informed blah blah blah" be specific - what alteration happens IN GAME to the path they take? If the answer is "none" then the knowledge was meaningless in game.

Observation might alter the event on a quantum level, but it doesn't alter a D&D game

 

[Ovinomancer]

This seems like a very academic and philosophical response but it's not really addressing the issue. If I say "do what you would have done without this information" how is your in-game path "informed" by your knowledge of the safe path? I gave you concrete examples, so tell me a concrete example of how you'd make a different choice under these circumstances because of being "informed" by your knowledge? If it doesn't change the result, it's not really a meaningful alteration of anything.




It doesn't though. I will give you the specific example, and you tell me the point where something has changed because of your knowledge:

Characters have been traveling overland quite a bit while adventuring. At first they sort of blundered forward but with experience they ended up with a set of strategies as follows: When traveling in unsafe and unknown overland territory the warlocks familiar flies up while invisible, staying in range of the warlock, and telepathically communicates the layout ahead and any potential threats to the warlock. Baring any threat or other known obstacles, the party tries to stay on low lying territory behind hills and trees and rocks to avoid detection by hidden foes, with a specific marching order which places a fighter-type in front which has a high perception, a fighter-type in rear, and the cleric in the middle, with the rogue and warlock between a cleric and a fighter-type. They will, using the reports from the familiar, maneuver around any difficult terrain or dangerous terrains like bogs and swamps and sandpits, and will take advantage of cover like forests and larger rocks.

Using this set of strategies and tactics, and comparing it to a map, you can tell pretty well what path the party will follow. Even without role playing it, you can just look at a map, apply this plan, and likely figure out a path the party will take. In this example, they'd follow a gully between hills, avoid a swamp to travel over to a forest, skirt the forest to get to some rocks, and only cross open terrain at points F and H on a map.

So now we know pretty well what the party would do if the players do not know the safe path. Once you introduce metagaming knowledge of a safe path - I am saying you still follow the path which they would have followed without that metagaming knowledge. WHICH MIGHT BE THE SAFEST PATH. We don't know if that path which is mapped out based on their usual plans is the safest or not.

You tell me how anything meaningful has changed in the game as a result of the metagaming knowledge using this concept? Don't be generic of "oh well they're still informed blah blah blah" be specific - what alteration happens IN GAME to the path they take? If the answer is "none" then the knowledge was meaningless in game.

Observation might alter the event on a quantum level, but it doesn't alter a D&D game

Right, so, what do you do if they follow the safe path and say that's what their characters would do anyway?


You're arguing to an impossible ideal -- that players can actually act as if they actually do not know something and have that be what would happen if they really didn't know anything. You're establishing this is something that actually happens, when it actually never happens -- you're always either deciding to do something you know isn't optimal or you're leveraging the knowledge for benefit. This is the troll argument all over -- how long do you have to pretend you know fire kills trolls before you're allowed to do that? It's not a fun thing to have to do, and it's not a good thing to actually expect from your players. If you, as DM, require players to pretend they do not know in order to make your scenario work out as you want, then you're doing it wrong. Instead, do something else that doesn't have that problem, or find a way to line up player knowledge with character knowledge without the pretend gymnastics.

In @iserith's OP case, I'd take a moment and rearrange the map. This is largely trivial for the given situation, as the numbered chits in D&D modules for Roll20 are easily movable. Delete the "safe path", draw a new one on the GM layer, and move the chits around. It's 5 minutes work, largely painless, and the best way to retcon the accidental release of information.

 

[Jediking]

Or if that wasn't possible, I'd just shrug it off and let the players do what they wanted with that information knowing that really this is just one scenario and I blew it, not the players.

I never think metagaming is an issue, but that is a whole (bunch of) other thread(s). Giving away info you want to build up to and losing tension/excitement sucks, but it's a long campaign and this seems like a bit of a more mundane exploration encounter, not an epic reveal/climax.

In this case I think it's a one-time mistake and isn't a huge deal. No need to spend time "correcting" any issues. Just play through it and get to the next, still-hidden encounter/map and don't let it disrupt the game flowing.

 

[Quickleaf]

"You briefly glimpse what look like footprints wending through the sand dunes, but a sudden gust of offshore wind obscures them before your eyes."

Let the players try to remember what they saw. If that means they avoid all dangers, so be it and move along.

EDIT: Don't know the specific situation, but this could have the happy side effect of foreshadowing capabilities of the pirates if there's a spell caster with pass without trace / gust of wind or a similar spell. Or it might just help build suspense around the spooky mysterious pirates.

 

[Mistwell]

Right, so, what do you do if they follow the safe path and say that's what their characters would do anyway?

Nothing at all. Perfectly fine result.

You're arguing to an impossible ideal -- that players can actually act as if they actually do not know something and have that be what would happen if they really didn't know anything.

I truly don't know where this "impossible ideal" thing is coming from. In effect, EVERY time you play a role-playing game you should be doing this. It's part of role-playing. I mean, I assume the ideals, bonds, and flaws of your character are not shared by you as a player, right?

You're establishing this is something that actually happens, when it actually never happens -- you're always either deciding to do something you know isn't optimal or you're leveraging the knowledge for benefit.

Deciding to do something which isn't optimal is a pretty standard aspect of role-playing. Heck, it's even in Matt Colliville's video on metagaming. Yes, doing what your character would do rather than what you think is the most optimal thing for the situation IS role-playing. It's a pretty basic aspect of role-playing. I just don't know how others think that's weird or any of the adjectives you and a couple of other guys are applying to it, like it's a foreign concept to a role-playing game.

 

[uzirath]

With most groups I've played with, I wouldn't worry about the meta-gaming aspect. They would choose their route based on the descriptions I give them. They might search for traps or scout ahead or stick to certain terrain or something like that. Worst case, if someone was certain of their memory and interpretation, they might roll the dice to see what they would do. (I've done that as a player before... doesn't interfere with WSoD unless I have to do it all the time.) Of course, on a good day, I would roll with it and either change the map on the fly or introduce additional complexity (like many of the examples so far). Sometimes just introducing randomness works great in this situation. Each numbered location is a probable location. When they get within a few hexes, I would roll to see where it really is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nothing at all. Perfectly fine result.

Huh? If this is a perfectly fine result, then there's no imperative to play with PC knowledge only. If any result is acceptable so long as it's claimed as PC desires, then there's no point in arguing you should play from your PC's knowledge only -- it's just a facade.

I truly don't know where this "impossible ideal" thing is coming from. In effect, EVERY time you play a role-playing game you should be doing this. It's part of role-playing. I mean, I assume the ideals, bonds, and flaws of your character are not shared by you as a player, right?

No. There's a difference between being an advocate for your PC -- trying to act on knowledge in a certain way -- than pretending you don't have knowledge.

Deciding to do something which isn't optimal is a pretty standard aspect of role-playing. Heck, it's even in Matt Colliville's video on metagaming. Yes, doing what your character would do rather than what you think is the most optimal thing for the situation IS role-playing. It's a pretty basic aspect of role-playing. I just don't know how others think that's weird or any of the adjectives you and a couple of other guys are applying to it, like it's a foreign concept to a role-playing game.

Again, acting as an advocate for your PC -- doing things with knowledge that align with your PC's goals and desires -- is not the same thing as pretending you don't know something. The former is good play, and fun play. It's not, in that case, picking a non-optimal course of action but instead picking the option that best aligns with your PC's goals. This is a different thing than pretending you don't know something because it helps the DM tell the DM's story. As a player, you should be telling your PC's story, and that's not aligned with picking things you, the player, know are both incorrect and would be incorrect for your PC if they knew.

In other words, if your PC's goals include running into monsters to defeat them in glorious combat then it's not sub-optimal to abandon a known safe path. If, however, your PC's goals are to find and defeat the pirate captain, then avoiding the safe path that leads most directly to said captain is a bad choice for that PC. Asking the player to ignore knowledge that aligns with the PC's goals to make a bad choice both for the player and the PC to cover the DM's story is a problem.

"Metagaming" is ALWAYS the fault of the GM.