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

[pemerton]

I think the experience of players seeing what is meant to be a secret map is not that uncommon. I've had it happen back when I used to run somewhat map-heavy Rolemaster.

I don't think I've ever changed a map in response. (I could be wrong - I'm recalling play from over two decades ago - but the recollections are stated sincerely.) Sometimes I haven't worried - I've never run a game, as best I can recall, where the map is everything. But I'm pretty sure there must have been occasions when I have asked players to politely ignore what they've inadvertently seen. Of course it's not ideal to metagame reveal a secret map (or any other secret) if part of the goal of play is for the players to discover it via play. But it can happen, and if it does I don't really see the point of debating whose "fault" it is.

Often players - at least those I play with - will engage in the sort of decision-making process I've just described themselves, without any GM request to that effect. They will consider what other information - ie information that was not just a metagame reveal - that they as their PCs had that would have influenced their decision about where to go, and will act on that My players will self-enforce "no metagaming" in other situations, too - eg declare actions that they believe make sense from their PCs' perspectives which are less total than the players' perspectives. In non-gamist play I don't see this as a big deal, because there is no "self-hindering" involved (given that the play is not gamist and so not aimed at beating the dungeon/whatever). If a player wants to do this it's no skin off my nose as GM.

This is part of why I'm so relaxed about having maps on open display, such as in my most recent session - because we're not playing a very gamist game, and to the extent that there are "victory conditions" they're not really map-based, and so the players have no real incentive to study the map for metagame clues like unique vs repeated numbers. The action will be brought via GM control over scene-framing, and the point of the map is to provide an expository aid and a constraint on/context for action declaration within a framed scene.

Robin Laws wrote about this sort of thing in an essay that is part of the Over the Edge rulebook (p 193 of my 20th anniversary edition):

When viewing role-playing as an art-form [ie analogous to improvised theatre, as per earlier material in Laws' essay), rather than a game [ie aimed primarily at achieving victory conditions], it ecomes less important to keep from the players things their characters wouldn't know. When characters separate, you can "cut" back and forth between scenes involving different characters. . . .

The price of this is allowing players access to information known to PCs other than their own. But it's simple enough to rule out of play any actions they attempt based on forbidden knowledge.​

If a player wants to self-enforce such a rule then it's even simpler!

 

[pemerton]

A coda: when my players really don't trust me to not metagame as GM they will plan via email (between session) or very occasionally I seem to recall having been asked to leave the table. This was mostly an issue when our main game was 4e, as 4e combat resolution is highly sensitive to clever sequences of action declaration and player-side resource use.

Burning Wheel uses blind declaration for some of its conflict resolution systems, and I have had players seek advice from one another over what they should declare in low voices so that I can't overhear.

It doesn't really come up in Traveller, Prince Valiant or MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic - the systems we've been playing most recently - because these don't tend to involve the sort of complex sequences and interactions that are part of 4e and BW. But if the players wanted to plot in secret that would be fine with me, though of course fully public plotting is more fun!

 

[uzirath]

Often players - at least those I play with - will engage in the sort of decision-making process I've just described themselves, without any GM request to that effect. They will consider what other information - ie information that was not just a metagame reveal - that they as their PCs had that would have influenced their decision about where to go, and will act on that My players will self-enforce "no metagaming" in other situations, too - eg declare actions that they believe make sense from their PCs' perspectives which are less total than the players' perspectives. In non-gamist play I don't see this as a big deal, because there is no "self-hindering" involved (given that the play is not gamist and so not aimed at beating the dungeon/whatever). If a player wants to do this it's no skin off my nose as GM.

This is fairly normal at my tables too. In this style of play, instead of asking the question, "What is an optimal solution to this situation?," you might ask, "What would my character do here?" For the latter question, it doesn't matter if you have a bunch of metagame knowledge. I concede that maybe, theoretically, that knowledge is informing your decision (in the sense that it's there bouncing around in your brain), but it's not relevant to the question.

I've always felt that this was a fairly intuitive way of roleplaying and it certainly comes easily to new players. In my most recent game (Saltmarsh for a group of mostly kids who are new to RPGs), one of our ten-year-old players came up with a cool idea and turned to his seven-year-old sister, "I have an idea, but I think it makes more sense for your character to think of it." Then he proceeded to share his idea. She was very excited, and presented it in character as if it were hers. Nobody cried foul.

This is not to say that I routinely put the map on the table. That's partly because I also appreciate that many players enjoy exploring, discovering secrets, getting snagged in traps, and things like that. But if somethings is inadvertently revealed, it's not a big deal.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is fairly normal at my tables too. In this style of play, instead of asking the question, "What is an optimal solution to this situation?," you might ask, "What would my character do here?" For the latter question, it doesn't matter if you have a bunch of metagame knowledge. I concede that maybe, theoretically, that knowledge is informing your decision (in the sense that it's there bouncing around in your brain), but it's not relevant to the question.

I've always felt that this was a fairly intuitive way of roleplaying and it certainly comes easily to new players. In my most recent game (Saltmarsh for a group of mostly kids who are new to RPGs), one of our ten-year-old players came up with a cool idea and turned to his seven-year-old sister, "I have an idea, but I think it makes more sense for your character to think of it." Then he proceeded to share his idea. She was very excited, and presented it in character as if it were hers. Nobody cried foul.

This is not to say that I routinely put the map on the table. That's partly because I also appreciate that many players enjoy exploring, discovering secrets, getting snagged in traps, and things like that. But if somethings is inadvertently revealed, it's not a big deal.

I do this all the time -- make choices from the standpoint of the character. It is, however, always a strain when you're asked to do so while ignoring information. I keep bringing up trolls and fire because this is a prime example of where it's not interesting or fun to pretend to ignorance. I have absolutely no problem, and often enjoy, pretending to ignorance for character action declarations in many situations, but that's not because I'm expected to ignore knowledge I have but because, armed with that knowledge, I think that choice would be the proper way to advocate for my PC.

The point isn't that you should make 'optimal' decisions armed with 'metagame' knowledge, but that the existence of situations where you're expected to do so is solely due to the DM creating that scene that way. It can be avoided, but not by the players, only the DM. Hence, if there's a fault to be had in a situation where people are complaining about metagame knowledge in play, that fault lies with the DM. If not one cares, it doesn't matter. People in this thread, though, appear to care, and seem to think it's a player-side issue -- they are not playing correctly. But, as I note, players don't have the choice to be put into this situation; that's the sole domain of the DM and so any blame for players not playing right falls on the DM's shoulders. Bad faith play exempted. I'm just pointing out that this "problem" of "metagaming" is easily solved on one side of the screen and unavoidable on the other.

 

[pemerton]

"Fault"
I think the idea that it's always on the GM is not true. Suppose, for instance, that the GM is sitting at one end of the tale with his/her maps close about, and the players are sitting at the other end where they can't easily see the maps. But then one of the players brings the GM a drink, and in the process of walking to and around the GM's end of the table inadvertently notices something striking on a map.

The resulting issue is the GM's "fault" only in the sense that s/he wants to continue with the map because that's the scenario s/he is ready to run.

The more general proposition is that there are multiple ways that information which everyone at the table wants kept secret from the players can nevertheless come to be known by them. The GM's not always an active participant, and a fortiori the GM's not always solely responsible.

Trolls
Choosing what action to declare in order to resolve an established situation - I attack the troll with . . . is, at least in most RPGs I'm familiar with, different from contributing to the framing of a situation - which is often, even typically in my experience, what is going on when the players choose which way their PCs go in the context of a map and key that the GM has already prepared and is not going to change in the course of play.

It's therefore no surprise that secrets, and processes of decision-making that put metagame knowledge to one side, are able to work quite differently in these different contexts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ah, subtweeting.

"Fault"
I think the idea that it's always on the GM is not true. Suppose, for instance, that the GM is sitting at one end of the tale with his/her maps close about, and the players are sitting at the other end where they can't easily see the maps. But then one of the players brings the GM a drink, and in the process of walking to and around the GM's end of the table inadvertently notices something striking on a map.

The resulting issue is the GM's "fault" only in the sense that s/he wants to continue with the map because that's the scenario s/he is ready to run.

Can the player remove the accidental spillage? No, only the DM can render the spillage of info moot.

So, if having this accudental knowledge becomes a problem due to action declarations, then "fault" lies with who has control over the information. IE, this is the DM's problem to fix.

The more general proposition is that there are multiple ways that information which everyone at the table wants kept secret from the players can nevertheless come to be known by them. The GM's not always an active participant, and a fortiori the GM's not always solely responsible.

Can't really comment on vague assertions that something could happen that somehow eliminates the fact that the DM retains the sole ability to fix the problem.

Trolls
Choosing what action to declare in order to resolve an established situation - I attack the troll with . . . is, at least in most RPGs I'm familiar with, different from contributing to the framing of a situation - which is often, even typically in my experience, what is going on when the players choose which way their PCs go in the context of a map and key that the GM has already prepared and is not going to change in the course of play.

It's therefore no surprise that secrets, and processes of decision-making that put metagame knowledge to one side, are able to work quite differently in these different contexts.

Ah, I detected the hidden assumption, which I've bolded.

The DM retains the sole ability to decide if the map changes. Just as the DM decides to employ trolls. If the problem emereges that knowledge if the map (or trolls) is causing "metagaming," then responsibility fir this can only lie with the DM, as they retain sole power over it's content. If the DM decides that their notes are immutable and this causes metagaming, it's then the DM's problem.

And, you keep trying to suggest that avoiding the known "secret" of trolls and fire until a DM acceptable number of options has been tried is somehow different from avoiding a known "secret" of a map until a DM acceptable number of options has been tried.

 

[pemerton]

you keep trying to suggest that avoiding the known "secret" of trolls and fire until a DM acceptable number of options has been tried is somehow different from avoiding a known "secret" of a map until a DM acceptable number of options has been tried.

This assertion is incorrect. I haven't said anything about "avoiding a known 'secret' of a map". I don't even really know what that means.

Choosing where one's PC goes on a map by reference to non-"metagame" considerations, and/or by reference to a decision procedure that can be applied independently of "metagame" considerations, may or may not result in going to place X which may or may not have some associated "secret".

The concern, in avoiding metagaming, is with decision-making process, not with the outcome.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Mispost

 

[Ovinomancer]

This assertion is incorrect. I haven't said anything about "avoiding a known 'secret' of a map". I don't even really know what that means.

Choosing where one's PC goes on a map by reference to non-"metagame" considerations, and/or by reference to a decision procedure that can be applied independently of "metagame" considerations, may or may not result in going to place X which may or may not have some associated "secret".

The concern, in avoiding metagaming, is with decision-making process, not with the outcome.

I don't see how you can make that claim as the point of using the process is to ensure the same outcome with knowledge as without. That makes the choice of process dependent on what outcome ot creates rather than escalating how you choose a process.

Further, unless you compare to an absolutely information free situation, using a naive process that doesn't take information into account never happens. You always take information provided by the gaming, you're character's attributes, conditions, and goals, and knowledge of genre into account in decision making. There isn't a naive process that actually exists unless your game is based on blind choices routinely. You're always synthesizing information into decisions.

Which, in the instant discussion, means you're synthesizing the "metagame" information as well in your decision making. The process is inextricable from this. So, I don't see how you can say the decision process and not the outcome is what you're arguing, as you're selecting you're decision process based on what outcome it provides. And, sure, you can do that -- you can pick a naive method like rolling a die or "always left," but it's impossible to say you made that choice without consideration of metagame information.

 

[Todd Roybark]

if all RPG decisions include metagame considerations, as you state, which presumably also includes the design portion, somehow the referee is responsible for this?

Unless the referee takes the extraordinary steps to re-write the rules, create ‘metagameless’ scenario, ( which is impossible in your formulation as all decisions have metagame considerations), and replace natural language with a Wittengstein approved logical vessel....then the referee is ‘at fault’.

For folks advocating this position, do you pay your DM’s and offer health and retirement benefits, as this is more of a workload than full time employment.

Blinded is a condition in 5e. If PC1 creates an effect that blinds PC2, politeness dictates PC2 acknowledges this turn of events in the shared narrative. So the DM is responsible for allowing the Blinded condition?

I don’t expect Blinded PCs to play with their eyes closed, but as anyone who has ever ran a battle in magic darkness or against Invisible foes, PCs even with disadvantage, still hit more often, target the correct square, more often than if you did require the players to play with their eyes closed.

Inherent in Ovin’s position, is the idea that the point of the game is to make the optimal choice.
I disagree with this. Just like playing chess with your 5 year old niece is probably not about making the optimal move, but more about fun....I think D&D falls more into a category like playing chess with a child.