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

[Ovinomancer]

Nothing at all. Perfectly fine result.




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?



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.

Further to my above, I watched a bit of the video you linked, and Matt is pretty much saying what I am. He's hung up a tad on 'optimal' being from a specific point of view -- tactically perfect, win the game, etc. -- whereas I'm using it as best for that PC. Nothing Matt says (in the few minutes I watched) talks about having player knowledge and not using it, but rather staying true to the goals and concepts of your PC. Matt freely used out of game knowledge about mechanics to make a choice about what was optimal for his PC. Metagaming remains a problem caused by the DM.

 

[Charlaquin]

Metagaming is a dumb concept. Players have the knowledge they have, and that knowledge will inform their decision making. That’s just psychology, no way around that. Roleplaying, in my opinion, is a matter of imagining yourself as another person and/or in a fictional or hypothetical scenario, and making decisions as you imagine you or that other person would in that scenario. Now, if the hypothetical scenario involves hidden traps and a safe path, and you are aware where that safe path is, it is up to you to decide what to do based on what you imagine the character would do. If you imagine that the character would take the safe path, that’s what you should do. If you imagine that the character would take a different path, that’s what you should do. Either way, your knowledge of the path informs that decision.

 

[uzirath]

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.

I'm confused. If your PC doesn't know the information, then how can it be the "correct" choice for you to play them as if they have information that they don't have?

If you imagine that the character would take the safe path, that’s what you should do.

How could you imagine that they would take the safe path if they have no way of knowing about it? Or maybe you're suggesting that there is some way within the fiction that they would figure it out? That would not be a problem for me. But if a player just said, "this is the way I would have gone" and then traces a convoluted path that just happens to match the accidental reveal... that would be cheesy in the extreme. (As a GM, I wouldn't have to do anything about it, because the other players would immediately veto the move and throw dice at the doofus.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm confused. If your PC doesn't know the information, then how can it be the "correct" choice for you to play them as if they have information that they don't have?

It's a counterfactual to illustrate a point. If the PC would pick an unsafe path even if they knew of a safe one, that's the optimal option for that PC. If the PC would not pick the unsafe path with knowledge of a safe one, then doing so is not optimal for that PC. The point is that you can't ask the player to not know something they know; any choice the player makes will be based on that knowledge. The goal should be for the player to be making choices as an advocate for the PC -- ie, making choices with the PC's goals in mind.

How could you imagine that they would take the safe path if they have no way of knowing about it? Or maybe you're suggesting that there is some way within the fiction that they would figure it out? That would not be a problem for me. But if a player just said, "this is the way I would have gone" and then traces a convoluted path that just happens to match the accidental reveal... that would be cheesy in the extreme. (As a GM, I wouldn't have to do anything about it, because the other players would immediately veto the move and throw dice at the doofus.)

No, I'm saying that if the DM's scenario relies on expecting players to ignore knowledge they have, then it's the DM's fault when problems like this occur. There's no such thing as PC knowledge -- they are fictional creations of real people that actually know things. You can't make a choice absent knowledge you have, and if the game and DM expect you to act as if you do not know, that's the fault of the game or DM. In the case of the OP, there's a number of trivially easy ways to correct for the accidental release of information so failure to do so and instead expect that your players will pretend to forget things is a poor choice and should not be encouraged. The DM should strive to create situation where player knowledge is a good thing rather than create situations where they expect players to act as if they don't know things.

I suppose there's some tables that would find pretending to not know trolls are killed by fire while their PCs are mauled, but that's not really advocating for their PCs, it's mummery. Mummery is fun, sure, but it shouldn't be the expected baseline when it's pretty easy to come up with scenes that don't require it of players.

 

[uzirath]

It's a counterfactual to illustrate a point.

While I don't entirely agree, I appreciate your clear and cogent response. I have a much better understanding of your position.

 

[Ovinomancer]

While I don't entirely agree, I appreciate your clear and cogent response. I have a much better understanding of your position.

I came to a realization about 4 years ago that metagaming was a problem I was causing as a DM. I stopped caring about it, and instead tried to create scenes that either expected players to know things they already know so that wasn't a problem, or making sure that there's no way for players to know important things until they find out in play. My games got 1) much less stressful as I wasn't worried about or looking for "metagaming", and 2) better all around and more enjoyable to the players. There's never been a case in my long history of gaming where holding a player accountable for metagaming actually made for a better gaming session. Never. Usually, it made them worse, occasionally no different. As a DM, you have the power to change the structure of the game so that metagaming just doesn't exist -- so why would you not? I mean, I know, because there's an idea that pretending you don't know about trolls and fire is a way to grab back that first time feeling when you first met a troll in game and didn't know anything about it. But, that's just chasing the past, and makes for a poor gaming experience. To me, the better thing to do is make a new troll and have a new experience. And it's super easy to do, just takes a change of perspective.

And this change doesn't impact any other facet of playstyle -- gritty, old school, new school, story-based, sandbox, whatever or however you play you can do it without every once worrying about metagaming if you change that one perspective to "it's my job as DM to prevent 'metagaming' by making sure it's not ever a problem my players have to worry about."

 

[Charlaquin]

How could you imagine that they would take the safe path if they have no way of knowing about it?

If the path you imagine your character would take is the safe one.

Or maybe you're suggesting that there is some way within the fiction that they would figure it out?

I guess, potentially. Or they took it for some other reason, without necessarily knowing it was safe. The example we’re discussing was pretty vague, so it’s hard to speculate on why the characters might or might not take the safe path. Although, in my opinion if there’s one safe path and no environmental clues that the players might or might not pick up on telegraphing as much, it’s a bit of a screwjob in the first place.

That would not be a problem for me. But if a player just said, "this is the way I would have gone" and then traces a convoluted path that just happens to match the accidental reveal... that would be cheesy in the extreme. (As a GM, I wouldn't have to do anything about it, because the other players would immediately veto the move and throw dice at the doofus.)

Eh. At my table, it’s a rule that nobody gets to tell anybody else what their character “would” or “wouldn’t” do. Of course, as I stated in my earlier post, what I would do in the scenario under discussion is offer my players the option to just let this challenge pass, or to take a short break so I could re-arrange things. (Although on the other hand, the example scenario wouldn’t happen in my games cause I don’t run online games any more.)

 

[ccs]

"Metagaming" is ALWAYS the fault of the GM.

Oh naughty word.

If you disagree, please explain how this would be the DMs fault:
My friend Alex is DMing the 1st PF2 AP for our Sunday game. Other than 2 one shots, this is his first time actually DMing.
He has no idea that I've got the first module sitting at home on my shelf. Bought & read it day one. Mostly because that's a great way to see how Paizo thinks a PF2 adventure should look, + maybe I'll run this(?). When he announced he wanted to run this AP I canceled any plans on buying #s 2+.
If I use the info I already know to my/the parties benefit before making the rolls or whatever - where the key items/clues are, what monsters are where, etc? That meta-gaming is on me, not the DM.

 

[pemerton]

I don't care much about "metagaming". Or secret maps - in my most recent RPG session, which was exploring a ship in Classic Traveller, I had a blown-up photocopy of the deck plans in the middle of the table.

But on this particular topic I agree with @Mistwell - if it's the case that the players have an established exploration procedure for their PCs, and if it's the case that the non-secret parts of the map give enough information to generate a more-or-less unique outcome by application of that procedure, then the procedure can be applied and the outcome narrated without it mattering that the players have seen the secret map.

Even if the outcome isn't strictly unique, it may well be possible to settle the uncertainties by throwing a die (eg "On 1-3 we go to the rocks via the copse; on 4-6 we go to the rocks along the lee side of the bluff"). I imagine this is the sort of thing @uzirath has in mind upthread. Even if the players didn't have the secret knowledge they'd have to guess one way or the other, so it's not like the randomisation is radically distorting the decision-making process.

Whether or not that is good roleplaying, or a good table experience, seems to be something pretty particular to a given table. But I think it's obviously possible for it to take place.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh naughty word.

If you disagree, please explain how this would be the DMs fault:
My friend Alex is DMing the 1st PF2 AP for our Sunday game. Other than 2 one shots, this is his first time actually DMing.
He has no idea that I've got the first module sitting at home on my shelf. Bought & read it day one. Mostly because that's a great way to see how Paizo thinks a PF2 adventure should look, + maybe I'll run this(?). When he announced he wanted to run this AP I canceled any plans on buying #s 2+.
If I use the info I already know to my/the parties benefit before making the rolls or whatever - where the key items/clues are, what monsters are where, etc? That meta-gaming is on me, not the DM.

I mean... your friend offered to run that AP, knowing you have some of the material, and didn’t make changes to that material? I wouldn’t say it’s his “fault,” but it was certainly within his power to make your attempt at leveraging that information not be a problem.

I’m not a fan of framing it in terms of “fault” (or the term “metagaming” for that matter...) but I will say that it is always within the DM’s power to design their game in such a way to prevent players leveraging out of character knowledge from being a problem.