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

[Hriston]

I don't view it as "OK". I don't view it as "bad" but I think it's lazy role playing. If that's what you enjoy, fine. But I'd advise people to try only using character knowledge more often, as they may find that more enjoyable.

Something not being your cup of tea doesn’t make it not okay.

We all agree it's not OK. What we don't agree on is if bad faith acts can also be metagaming acts. Well really I think most people agree but a small minority are quibbling because they want an absolutist "it's always the DMs fault" position and that is inconvenient when we include bad faith metagaming so they just re-define the term to not include the stuff that is inconvenient.

I think you’re muddying the debate by clinging to an example of a “dirty metagamer”. If you want to denounce metagaming, you should do so based on whatever lack of merit you see in using knowledge your character wouldn’t have. Tying metagaming to breaking the social contract is like saying polyamory is bad because some people cheat on their partners.

 

[Mistwell]

Something not being your cup of tea doesn’t make it not okay.

Pretty sure it's not OK to me, and that my opinion remains my opinion. If you find it OK, cool. But you being OK with it doesn't change my opinion, and you don't even seem to be trying to change opinions as you didn't even give a reason why you're OK with it.

I think you’re muddying the debate by clinging to an example of a “dirty metagamer”. If you want to denounce metagaming, you should do so based on whatever lack of merit you see in using knowledge your character wouldn’t have. Tying metagaming to breaking the social contract is like saying polyamory is bad because some people cheat on their partners.

Sorry you want a clean debate where you can push the "I win" button by defining metagaming in a way which makes it super clean, but that's not the real world. People DO think metagaming means "Your character acts on information that you as a player have, but that your character does not." Even if you don't like it, that's what people mean when they talk about that term. Which means you're going to have to deal with that mud. That's where most conversations take place - where there are edge cases worth debating.

I don't denounce ALL metagaming. I said earlier we can talk about if there is good, bad, and neutral metagaming, and we can talk about DM blame, player blame, or nobody being to blame. I am not the one trying to make an absolutist statement that there is only one type of metagaming and it's also always the DMs fault and anything which falls outside that simultaneously narrow and fuzzy definition simply "doesn't count" as metagaming.

I will give you another example - a player acts on information about an adventure they read here, but they genuinely simply forgot to tell the DM. They meant to, but they forgot. So it's not bad faith - but it's definitely not what they were supposed to do as they knew they were supposed to tell the DM they read that information so the DM could change things are adapt to the player having knowledge the characters don't have. Still the DMs fault?

 

[iserith]

Would it be better if instead the claim was "All metagaming is the DM's fault, except in cases where you've decided to play with pathological people who lie about their experience with an adventure the DM is running in order to gain an advantage in a manner which breaks the social contract?"

Because if that's all it takes to move past this issue, that's fine by me. I didn't make the original claim, but I understand it to be true in a game where the participants are otherwise playing in good faith. We don't really need to debate people playing in bad faith. That's a game that shouldn't happen in the first place in my view.

 

[Mistwell]

Would it be better if instead the claim was "All metagaming is the DM's fault, except in cases where you've decided to play with pathological people who lie about their experience with an adventure the DM is running in order to gain an advantage in a manner which breaks the social contract?"

Because if that's all it takes to move past this issue, that's fine by me. I didn't make the original claim, but I understand it to be true in a game where the participants are otherwise playing in good faith. We don't really need to debate people playing in bad faith. That's a game that shouldn't happen in the first place in my view.

First, I don't think a person need be pathological to omit mentioning they saw a spoiler. Second, I gave another example where no bad faith was involved a player just forgot.

Welcome to the socratic method, where your principals are tested against numerous examples to see if they hold up (I have more exmaples which also don't fit your "bad faith" exemption and which also don't result in DM being at fault - want them?). Generally, if they don't hold up like yours are not right now, you change your position instead of just changing definitions to avoid examining your position.

 

[iserith]

I gave another example where no bad faith was involved a player just forgot.

So if we add "or the player just plumb forgot" then we can discuss something more productive?

It seems to me that some people can see the difference between "metagaming" and bad faith play and others, perhaps those who generally have a dim view of "metagaming," cannot. It costs me nothing to just add qualifiers to a claim I didn't make, so deal?

 

[Mistwell]

So if we add "or the player just plumb forgot" then we can discuss something more productive?

Hey nobody is forcing you to discuss this. You jumped in. I think this is plenty productive. If there are many examples which cause you to add an exemption, eventually you'll realize your general rule was flawed and needs to be altered. That is...if you're arguing in good faith.

It seems to me that some people can see the difference between "metagaming" and bad faith play and others, perhaps those who generally have a dim view of "metagaming," cannot. It costs me nothing to just add qualifiers to a claim I didn't make, so deal?

1. A player reads the adventure and decides to not disclose this the DM - this one is the only clear bad faith one.
2. A player simply sees a single spoiler somewhere but decides to not disclose this to the DM because they are worried it would rock the boat and think a single spoiler is no big deal
3. A player see a spoiler and forgets to tell the DM but meant to
4. A player sees a spoiler and forgets to tell the DM but then remembers mid-game but chooses to not disclose to the DM in the moment because they feel it would harm the game to disrupt it with this conversation
5. A player sees a spoiler but didn't even realize it was a spoiler at the time until they see the creature in question and then doesn't disclose because it would be too big a fuss or disruptive.

I can keep going. Not all metagaming that's a player's "fault" or which is "neutral" is bad faith.

It does cost you to keep adding qualifiers - because too many makes it useless as a statement.

Which is what it is - useless. Not all metagaming is the DMs fault. Sometimes it's the players fault. And sometimes it's nobodies fault. And sometimes metagaming can be good. And sometimes it can be bad. And sometimes it's really not good or bad. Which is how most things in life tend to go - non-absolutist.

 

[Hriston]

Would it be better if instead the claim was "All metagaming is the DM's fault, except in cases where you've decided to play with pathological people who lie about their experience with an adventure the DM is running in order to gain an advantage in a manner which breaks the social contract?"

I’d say, in that case, metagaming isn’t the problem, so it need not be anyone’s fault.

 

[Mistwell]

I’d say, in that case, metagaming isn’t the problem, so it need not be anyone’s fault.

Again, you're defining metagaming as "not including anything which may call into question my claim it's always the DMs fault".

That's bad faith.

Are you willing to admit there are situations which are both A) metagaming, and B) something which the DM wasn't even aware of?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I gave another example where no bad faith was involved a player just forgot.

Welcome to the socratic method, where your principals are tested against numerous examples to see if they hold up. Generally, if they don't hold up like yours are not right now, you change your position instead of just changing definitions to avoid examining your position.

Ah, we've reached this point in the discussion. The "I'm going to hold you to a strawman of your statement and cast you as unreasonable" point. Cool, cool. You do you. I'll just talk to the reasonable people that can tell the difference between knowing trolls are killed by fire and lying to the beginner DM so you can win. If you'd like to join, I'd be happy to have you.

 

[iserith]

Ah, we've reached this point in the discussion. The "I'm going to hold you to a strawman of your statement and cast you as unreasonable" point. Cool, cool. You do you. I'll just talk to the reasonable people that can tell the difference between knowing trolls are killed by fire and lying to the beginner DM so you can win. If you'd like to join, I'd be happy to have you.

Agreed. Good luck, Mistwell.

I’d say, in that case, metagaming isn’t the problem, so it need not be anyone’s fault.

Also agreed, but try explaining that to people who take a dim view of "metagaming." lol