D&D 5E Player challange Vs Character challange (Metagaming)

[wedgeski]

Nuh uh. That's twisting the situation.

"There's a door in your way."
That's a player challenge. What you quote isn't a challenge, it's a resolution of a solution that came forth from the challenge to the player.

Then you're saying everything is player challenge because it all stems from them sitting down at the table to play D&D?

 

[wedgeski]

Yeah, you can go heavy roll-play in attempt to cut the player out of the character, but I find it loses something.

I honestly don't know how the example of breaking down a door in any way suggests going "heavy roll-play".

 

[Sunseeker]

I honestly don't know how the example of breaking down a door in any way suggests going "heavy roll-play".

Because it reverses the narrative. Instead of the player going "I do X and this is how I do it." the player goes "I rolled a 15 athletics to break down the door." and the DM has to fill in the flavor, if any.

You role then you roll at my table. Not the other way around.

 

[wedgeski]

Because it reverses the narrative. Instead of the player going "I do X and this is how I do it." the player goes "I rolled a 15 athletics to break down the door." and the DM has to fill in the flavor, if any.

You role then you roll at my table. Not the other way around.

Oooh-kay. I think this thread is in danger of pushing my buttons, so agree to disagree etc.

 

[iserith]

In my view, it's all a challenge to the player since the character isn't a real person and can't be challenged. Depending on how the DM runs the game, players are being challenged in different ways and are being encouraged to use and develop particular skills.

If, for example, the DM relies on die rolls for almost everything, the player's character-building skills are being tested. Skillful play under such a DM is, in my view, creating, advancing, and equipping a character with the goal of succeeding at a wide range of ability checks and advocating for the use of the ability checks with which you have the best odds of success while avoiding tasks involving ability checks for which you have a lower chance of success.

On the other hand, in a game wherein the DM uses dice as little as possible (except perhaps in combat), the skill being tested is the player's ability to make a case for success. Skillful play in this kind of game, in my view, is recognizing and playing to the DM's preferences such as being particularly creative, entertaining, true-to-character, logical, realistic, or thorough while building a character that can hold its own in combat since this is generally when you'll be rolling the most dice.

With regard to DMs concerned about "metagaming," as the term is often used, the DM commonly acts as a gatekeeper for the character's knowledge and the expectation is that a player will refrain from drawing upon knowledge the character does not have when making decisions for his or her character. In my view, the skillful play here is to create a character with a background that suggests access to knowledge (a sage, perhaps, or a world-traveler of sorts), train as many "knowledge" skills as you can, and have the highest possible bonus in each. This way, you have a better chance of getting past the roll-gate. When you can't get past it, play into the character's ignorance in the hopes of receiving Inspiration (which is useful for later "knowledge" checks).

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Technically, character knowledge. Most common to uncommon monster info is assumed to be known via folklore the PCs are exposed to as they grow up. If it's something outside that realm it's the appropriate attribute/skill roll with a DC fit to the situation. I'll give this to them for free (not an action to use). If a player starts to bring in knowledge they don't have, I'll simply state, "You don't know that." However I do actively encourage RP that allows players to learn about monsters as they battle them.

 

[CaptainGemini]

That is a character challenge, unless you consider rolling a d20 to be challenging for the player!

Some of the players I've had? Yes, I would very much consider rolling a d20 to be a challenge for the player.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think the wording in the OP is throwing me off. Player skill =/= using metagame knowledge. Not always. Not even a majority of the time. IME, player skill encourages interaction and investment from that player, rather than just have them be prisoners of their character sheet.

For example, it really saddens me when players won't attempt to engage in the scenario because they don't have the highest skill in whatever, or they don't have a certain ability or power. When a player engages themselves and explains how they will try to better disarm that trap (player skill that doesn't' necessarily rely on any metagaming knowledge), I may give them a bonus. I've actually heard from several people how they won't bother to talk their way out of something because they only have a +5 to the skill and their fellow player has a +7, so they always let the other player do all the talking. That's what I call metagaming, because in an organic realistic environment, not being the best at a task has never stopped people from attempting it. And I want all my players to feel engaged and not feel like they shouldn't contribute if you only use character skill for everything.

On the flip side, any player who clearly uses metagame knowledge (Trolls are weak to fire!) when their PCs wouldn't know that, gets a stern warning for sure.

 

[iserith]

For example, it really saddens me when players won't attempt to engage in the scenario because they don't have the highest skill in whatever, or they don't have a certain ability or power. When a player engages themselves and explains how they will try to better disarm that trap (player skill that doesn't' necessarily rely on any metagaming knowledge), I may give them a bonus. I've actually heard from several people how they won't bother to talk their way out of something because they only have a +5 to the skill and their fellow player has a +7, so they always let the other player do all the talking. That's what I call metagaming, because in an organic realistic environment, not being the best at a task has never stopped people from attempting it. And I want all my players to feel engaged and not feel like they shouldn't contribute if you only use character skill for everything.

As I mentioned above, I see this as a natural outcome of the DM's approach. See "Roll With It" in the DMG, page 236:

"Some DMs rely on die rolls for almost everything. When a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check a picks a DC... A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

If I know the DM is going to make me roll pretty much regardless of what I say or do, but I also want to succeed, then I certainly don't want to do anything my character isn't good at. That is skillful play, given the DM's approach.

On the flip side, any player who clearly uses metagame knowledge (Trolls are weak to fire!) when their PCs wouldn't know that, gets a stern warning for sure.

Personally, I don't care how players make decisions for their characters, but it seems to me if a DM does care about that, it's best to change the monster's stat block when running games with experienced players. Why even create the opportunity for "metagaming" and the resulting "stern warning?"

 

[sleypy]

I think there is a big difference for me between a player that knows chemistry making use of that knowledge and a player using information that went un-noticed to their character like the thief successfully stealing a gem of a table. I don't have any issue with player knowledge, I do have an issue with Players using knowledge presented at the table that their character has no way of having.